How accountable...

[paddler3d]

If you are a Rescue level diver and below, I would say no.

If you are a DM and above, I would say yes.

Then there is the whole moral issue.

Remember we're all certified divers and we're all responsible for our own safety.

 

[imwright1985]

i think its a matter of each situation, if you have someone completly disappear with no oportunity to see a problem arise your in the clear but if there are signs that you had ample oportunity to help then your getting into an area you may be partially liable, like a non panicking OOA with you having over 1000 psi in the 60ft range and you turning the other person away. the main thing is if the other person isnt panicking to where it could cause you harm you should try to help.

 

[rstofer]

I thought the California Supreme Court had settled the issue (for California). Nobody has any 'good samaritan' obligations whatsoever.

California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care - Los Angeles Times
FindLaw's Writ - Sebok: The California Supreme Court Holds that Good Samaritans Providing Nonmedical Aid Can Be Held Liable If They Act Negligently

There may be 'for pay' relationships (instructors, etc) but, for the average 'insta-buddy', there appears to be no legal obligation to do anything. In fact, there are civil liabilities that make doing anything a serious risk to your financial well-being.

Apparently, if the victim can make it to the surface, it is ok to perform first aid. No liability for 'medical' care. Just don't help them get to the surface. If there is a run-away ascent, you're responsible. The 'tow' part of 'tow and blow' is a problem.

Richard

 

[Doc]

You asked, literally: "can one be prosecuted?"

Yes.

Just as one may institute a lawsuit against anyone for anything, a criminal prosecution is nothing more than a lawsuit.

Our system allows, and some may well argue encourages, frivolous suits. Civil and criminal.

Any and various States/District Attornies are not exempt from such indiscretions.

That's why they're called Persecuting... ummm... Prosecuting Attornies. They are, after all, elected/appointed politicians.

What they do makes the news. Publicity is good.

 

[fisheater]

I thought the California Supreme Court had settled the issue (for California). Nobody has any 'good samaritan' obligations whatsoever.

California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care - Los Angeles Times
FindLaw's Writ - Sebok: The California Supreme Court Holds that Good Samaritans Providing Nonmedical Aid Can Be Held Liable If They Act Negligently

There may be 'for pay' relationships (instructors, etc) but, for the average 'insta-buddy', there appears to be no legal obligation to do anything. In fact, there are civil liabilities that make doing anything a serious risk to your financial well-being.

Apparently, if the victim can make it to the surface, it is ok to perform first aid. No liability for 'medical' care. Just don't help them get to the surface. If there is a run-away ascent, you're responsible. The 'tow' part of 'tow and blow' is a problem.

Richard

California legislature amended the "good Samaritan" statute to reverse the effect of that Supreme Court decision. Now, nonmedical rescue efforts are again covered by immunity.

By agreeing to be a dive buddy, you agree to take on a duty of care to your buddy. The extent of that duty depends upon lots of factors, including your training and abilities and conditions.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[rstofer]

California legislature amended the "good Samaritan" statute to reverse the effect of that Supreme Court decision. Now, nonmedical rescue efforts are again covered by immunity.

Got a citation? I read the paper quite a bit and haven't seen anything out of the legislature in years! Non-medical efforts were never covered by immunity (as I read the decision).

By agreeing to be a dive buddy, you agree to take on a duty of care to your buddy. The extent of that duty depends upon lots of factors, including your training and abilities and conditions.
Posted via Mobile Device

Somehow I doubt this but I'm not a lawyer.

I have no control over how my buddy dives, I have no knowledge of their medical conditions, I don't know if or when they had their equipment serviced. Heck, I don't even know if they are a trained diver. It's not like we play c-card poker.

Why would anyone take any responsibility whatsoever for an 'insta-buddy'. Risk your home, pension, 401k's and financial future on some bozo on a boat? If this liability was fully disclosed there would be a lot more solo divers. In fact, on cattle-boats, I don't agree to be a dive buddy. I am assigned to be a buddy. Usually to the most incompetent diver on the boat. Been there, done that, wish I hadn't.

I'd like to see some case law on this. Something direct to the point. A diver with an 'insta-buddy'.

Richard

 

[PatW]

Well, the Gabe Watson situation was where the state believed that Watson planned and successfully murdered his wife during a dive. Watson pled guilty to a lessor charge.

Now, unless you all plan to systematically eliminate your dive buddies, I do not see how the Watson case would affect anyone.

The normal dive buddy should know where his/her buddy is and how they are doing and be able to render assistance if necessary. However, this is recognizing that most dive buddies are not trained to deal with extreme or panic situations. I do not think we would ask a dive buddy to put themselves at risk. One needs to remember that all certified divers are responsible for their own safety.

 

[rstofer]

Got a citation? I read the paper quite a bit and haven't seen anything out of the legislature in years! Non-medical efforts were never covered by immunity (as I read the decision).

Found some articles:

California Law Protects Good Samaritans from Lawsuits :: San Diego Injury Law Blog

Good Samaritan Bill Passes Assembly Judiciary Committee - The California Civil Justice Blog

Now I have to go find the legislation. The fact that it was supported by the trial lawyers is not a good sign.

Richard

 

[maged_mmh]

Dive Buddies are extra - in terms of security; each diver must be self sufficient: (training, equipment, skills, planning, defining limits, ...did I miss anything?)

 

[meierdierck]

You asked, literally: "can one be prosecuted?"
Yes.
Just as one may institute a lawsuit against anyone for anything, a criminal prosecution is nothing more than a lawsuit.
Our system allows, and some may well argue encourages, frivolous suits. Civil and criminal.

you can be sued by the family, and if there is a death involved, I would PLAN on it, but it really will not go anywhere unless they can prove negligence, that your actions caused harm, or you did not act as any equally trained reasonable person would in the same situation.

Criminally, I dont think you have any concerns, unless you break the law, like in Gabe's case kill your wife. Prosecutors dont generally get involved in Good Sam cases, unless there is evidence of Criminal actions