Horizon Charters San Diego Wins Defense Verdict in Lawsuit

[hollywood_mermaid]

DiveNewswire

 

[Jax]

Excellent!

It is rare in diving accident cases to get a 100% defense verdict, but in Goetz v. Horizon Charters et al, all twelve jurors voted for the acquittal of Horizon, citing diver responsibility as a basis for their decision.

 

[DandyDon]

I don't know the case, company or people, but for "an 18-day jury trial and a jury deliberation of only two and a half hours, all of the jurors found in favor of Horizon," it does sound like a nuisance suit hoping the insurance would just settle. Defense had to spend a fortunate to defend & win. From that one report, it sounded like negligent diving.

 

[Scott L]

I don't know the case, company or people, but for "an 18-day jury trial and a jury deliberation of only two and a half hours, all of the jurors found in favor of Horizon," it does sound like a nuisance suit hoping the insurance would just settle. Defense had to spend a fortunate to defend & win. From that one report, it sounded like negligent diving.

On the flip side, the plaintiff's attorneys also spend some major coin with a resulting goose egg verdict the result. :chuckle:

 

[DandyDon]

On the flip side, the plaintiff's attorneys also spend some major coin with a resulting goose egg verdict the result. :chuckle:

I don't criticize lawyers. Each side, prosecution and defendant, plaintive and defendant, whatever, deserved the best job possible by the respective attorney. And I am sorry for the family of the deceased, but from that one report - they should not have sued. Hell, I'd be a pissed juror for spending over two weeks on that case. Fortunately they never pick me.

 

[fisheater]

As the link was to a Horizon Charters press release, it would be very interesting to get some "news" from the plaintiff's perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gunrock]

I only dove with Horizon once, I found them to be excellent, and they seemed to charge accordingly; I always wanted to dive with them again but the multiday trips I looked into just seemed to cost way more than other operators. I don't know what island they were off of but the Channel Islands tend to be like other SoCal dive spots: cold and murky. The boats commonly anchor in 50-70' of water, currents are not uncommon, and the DM does not enter the water with the group. It takes a bit of skill to navigate back to the anchor line, and you can't count on being able to see the boat from the bottom. I don't know if most people would consider this combination to qualify as "advanced" diving but it certainly can be unforgiving. In this case it sounds like the diver may not have observed several generally observed rules and did not effectively use the training he presumably had.

I'd be very curious to hear the buddy's take on the incident.

 

[Ayisha]

Wow, they have a really good lawyer. If they could not get an "ok" or response from either diver, isn't that supposed to be taken as they're not ok? The "ok" question is supposed to require a positive answer.

To begin searching 25 minutes after the first diver came back seems pretty laid back too.

I understand and believe in taking personal responsibility, but not taking action when an "ok" is not returned and then waiting a further 25 minutes after divers have separated and the first one has returned is not about taking personal responsibility. They had no idea what the problem was at the time. The DM's do not go in the water except in an emergency, and they did not establish whether there was an emergency or not.

Any chance of appeal?

 

[Kilili]

Unfortunate someone died, however I think the verdict was the right one. I wonder how the deceased might have ruled. To me the case filed undermines the notion that a diver should actually assume responsibility for his own actions. Were the verdict reversed, I dread to think of the implications regarding how diving would then be managed in the US.

 

[mdb]

Who was the other sides attorney?