Hiding your certification level

[Web Monkey]

I guess that the next question in my examination would be: "So, why didn't you show your instructor's card?"

There is no need to answer. The point is that I think I could have gotten mileage out of the fact someone showed a c-card with less than their top cert.

Mileage for what?

If me and my buddy are 200' back at the end of a group, and someone (not my buddy and not near me) goes off and gets killed, how does that become my responsibility?

Terry

 

[diverdoug1]

Hey Adurso, I have always foung your avatar disturbing but oddly itriguing.

 

[walke121]

If I am diving for leisure I don't think its anyone's business but my own on what my cert. level is. If I go out and get on a charter I don't believe that I should be held responsible for others actions just because I have certain certifications. I don't buddy with people I just meet at the boat 30 min. before the dive. I feel that my obligations lie with myself and my buddy (if diving with one). I am not saying I wouldn't do everything in my power to help a diver in need but I am just saying in that unless you are in charge of the dive/charter you shouldn't be held responsible.

 

[Walter]

What Bruce has not mentioned is that he would not allow you the luxury of explanation......

When answering questions, answer the question asked and only the question asked. Do not volunteer information. His 6th, 7th, and 13th questions asked for explanations.

Lawyers are very careful to ask only questions they know the answers to, they orchestrate the testimony as best they can

That's an ideal. Bruce missed the target, but he did much better than my previous experience with lawyers questioning me about a dive related case, they were pretty sad.

They couch questions for a "yes/no" answer as best they can.

Sometimes their best is pretty good, sometimes it isn't.

A witness who attempts an explanation becomes "hostile" or "argumentative" and god forbid you sound like you are arguing law....because they ask for your law license....

If a witness needs to get in an explanation, that can be done through answering a question from the lawyer representing the other side. That way it is cooperative, not hostile. My observation is some witnesses get into trouble by not fully understanding the question. When asked a question, think about what was asked, think about it literally and answer it literally. Never volunteer information. If the lawyer is silly enough to ask, "why?" he's asked for an explanation.

It would be silly to argue law in testimony. My understanding is only the judge can instruct the jury as to the law.

 

[ItsBruce]

I am not giving legal advice or opinions, but as a general rule, a diver, whether OW or an instructor, is not going to be held liable for an injury to someone who is on the same boat or even the same group unless he or she has specifically engaged in affirmative conduct that would give rise to liability. That might include giving advice about diving or telling the diver not to worry because you are an instructor.

The reality is that general rule or not, if you say or do something really stupid, you could end up being held liable anyway. Being an arrogant jerk on the witness stand is one good way. Being perceived as a liar is another. I have seen it happen many times.

A skilled lawyer will try to manufacture a basis liability if there isn't actually one. (That's his or her job, what the rules call for and what the client wants, so don't blame the lawyer.) IMHO, if there is no other basis for liability and a diver has hidden his or her true cert level, that would be one of the places I'd expect a lawyer to look to manufacture liability. The questions I asked above might be sufficient to get a jury thinking that the defendant was hiding his or her cert level to avoid liability because he or she knew he or she had a duty and did not want to shoulder it.

DO NOT ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IN PUBLIC ... but ... isn't that really at least one reason why people are concerned about disclosing their real cert level?

Now, for anyone who said "no," go back and re-read this whole thread.

BTW: Experts in criminal law will tell you never to talk to the police. They will tell you that even if you are telling the truth, if someone else says something contradictory, the police may use the inconsistency against you. At a minimum, they might decide to scrutinize you further. However, if you say nothing, there is no inconsistency. And, you have a nearly absolute right to remain silent.

 

[diverdoug1]

I am not giving legal advice or opinions, but as a general rule, a diver, whether OW or an instructor, is not going to be held liable for an injury to someone who is on the same boat or even the same group unless he or she has specifically engaged in affirmative conduct that would give rise to liability. That might include giving advice about diving or telling the diver not to worry because you are an instructor.

The reality is that general rule or not, if you say or do something really stupid, you could end up being held liable anyway. Being an arrogant jerk on the witness stand is one good way. Being perceived as a liar is another. I have seen it happen many times.

A skilled lawyer will try to manufacture a basis liability if there isn't actually one. (That's his or her job, what the rules call for and what the client wants, so don't blame the lawyer.) IMHO, if there is no other basis for liability and a diver has hidden his or her true cert level, that would be one of the places I'd expect a lawyer to look to manufacture liability. The questions I asked above might be sufficient to get a jury thinking that the defendant was hiding his or her cert level to avoid liability because he or she knew he or she had a duty and did not want to shoulder it.

DO NOT ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IN PUBLIC ... but ... isn't that really at least one reason why people are concerned about disclosing their real cert level?

Now, for anyone who said "no," go back and re-read this whole thread.

BTW: Experts in criminal law will tell you never to talk to the police. They will tell you that even if you are telling the truth, if someone else says something contradictory, the police may use the inconsistency against you. At a minimum, they might decide to scrutinize you further. However, if you say nothing, there is no inconsistency. And, you have a nearly absolute right to remain silent.

As the OP, I would like to respond to your question of not shouldering any perceived duty. I have spent my life in the service of my fellow man. I have saved many lives in the course of both my professional and recreational pursuits. I say this not to toot my own horn, but to assure you that I have NEVER tried to shirk my duty. Mom & Dad did not raise their boys that way! My concern about disclosing my level of certification is because there are plenty of sue happy people out there, and plenty of desperate lawyers that are willing to take a long shot and go after a "deep pocket". In the course of my medical practice, I have seen good Doctors undergo frivolous lawsuits, just so they would settle to get away from the trouble of dealing with all the BS involved with defending a suit. I just wanted to know if I kept my diving credentials on the "down low", if some stroke injured himself while I happend to be in the water at the same time, would I be able to decrease my chances of running into a frivolous lawsuit.

You say "A skilled lawyer will try to manufacture a basis liability if there isn't actually one. (That's his or her job, what the rules call for and what the client wants, so don't blame the lawyer)". So what I gather from that is that it is the lawyers job is to lie? No wonder tort reform is such a big issue! I don't lie, and I would never work in a profession where "the rules" required me to be a liar. I also don't think I am being disingenuous when I show my nitrox card when asked for a c-card.

 

[boulderjohn]

I am not giving legal advice or opinions, but as a general rule, a diver, whether OW or an instructor, is not going to be held liable for an injury to someone who is on the same boat or even the same group unless he or she has specifically engaged in affirmative conduct that would give rise to liability.

A My concern about disclosing my level of certification is because there are plenty of sue happy people out there, and plenty of desperate lawyers that are willing to take a long shot and go after a "deep pocket".

There is definitely a perception that "sue happy people" are out there ready to sue anyone who was on a boat in the case of a diving accident, for this thread is only the latest in a long line of similar discussions in which people raise this fear.

In contrast, ItsBruce, an attorney, says it is not likely to happen.

So how often does it in fact happen? In one of the past threads on this topic, an attorney participating did a search and was unable to find anything like it. The only cases found (and there were darned few) involved someone acting in a professional, supervising role. Are people reacting to a fear of a boogeyman who does not in fact exist?

The other fear in this thread is of being paired with a beginning diver, something which I have already addressed as being very rare, especially in comparison to the far more likely scenario that you will get highly beneficial treatment instead.

It seems to me that people are saying that they are going to pass up the near certainty of getting positive benefits because of a fear of something that never happens and something that rarely happens.

 

[Walter]

I am not giving legal advice or opinions, but as a general rule, a diver, whether OW or an instructor, is not going to be held liable for an injury to someone who is on the same boat or even the same group unless he or she has specifically engaged in affirmative conduct that would give rise to liability. That might include giving advice about diving or telling the diver not to worry because you are an instructor.

On one hand, you say not telling folks you are an instructor is lying and setting yourself up for liability issues yet on the other, you say us telling people you are an instructor is setting yourself up for liability issues.

Unless I'm teaching, there's no reason for other folks on the boat to know I'm an instructor. I do not "hide" the fact I'm an instructor. If it comes up in conversation, I answer truthfully. I don't flash an instructor card. I don't proclaim for all to hear that I'm an instructor. I've never hidden or lied about it. Am I concerned about liability? Not really, but liability is something to consider. I do try not to assume an instructor/student relationship with anyone who is not an actual student. If I tell them I'm an instructor and them give advice, I may very well be creating such a relationship when that is not my intention.

IMHO, if there is no other basis for liability and a diver has hidden his or her true cert level, that would be one of the places I'd expect a lawyer to look to manufacture liability. The questions I asked above might be sufficient to get a jury thinking that the defendant was hiding his or her cert level to avoid liability because he or she knew he or she had a duty and did not want to shoulder it.

The witness would have to be not thinking at all for those questions to be effective. I know some people don't think when they are on the stand, but I wouldn't count on it. If that's all the lawyer has, he doesn't have a case. I think you'd have a much better shot going after the instructor who is still exicted about being an instructor and tells everyone than the instructor who never mentions it.

I've been on two juries, with few exceptions, the type of questioning of which you gave us an example doesn't help the attorney's case, they make him look like he's grasping for straws.

 

[H2O Gal]

This thread is proves something that I have been saying for years....one of the problems in the USA now is that we have become too litigious and too many people are refusing to be responsible for their own actions. Personally I know I have chosen a sport that can potentially result in death, but unless there was gross negligence, I wouldn't think of suing anyone (of course if I'm dead, I can't, can I?), but people sue for anything, like burns from hot coffee. The result of this is rising prices due to the need for companies to carry higher and higher liability insurance, and lots of companies have gotten out of the business altogether. We are losing doctors at an alarming rate because they can't carry malpractice insurance. Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying it's the lawyer's fault--I just think we've lost personal responsibility somewhere along the way....and I'm not sure we'll ever get it back.....

 

[adurso]

Hey Adurso, I have always foung your avatar disturbing but oddly itriguing.

I am taller in person....