How accountable...

[diver 85]

You and I go diving. We agree to be buddies. We're more than two divers who happen to be in the same place at the same time. We owe each other a duty of care to be reasonably prudent dive buddies.

Your reg freezes up. You turn to me, your dive buddy and signal that you're OOA and want me to air share. Even though you're not panicking and I've got plenty of air and have been trained (and trained others) on air sharing, I flip you off and hightail it out of there. I'm negligent. I'm violating a legal (and moral) duty.

However, if you then swim over to another diver, and he does the same, he's a jerk, but not negligent. He didn't agree to be your buddy, as I had. All of the agencies teach that your dive buddy is your source of emergency air. That's part of the package you agree to when you buddy up. I agreed to take on that role for you. He didn't.

ESAs are also taught also, can't help the IQ of the buddy..

 

[Thalassamania]

here is what PADI says

Oh, gee ... well if PADI says it it must be true!

What three things should you consider before attempting an
inwater rescue of someone in the water?
a. Knowing how to help others in the water is important.
Always act safely to reduce the risk of becoming a victim
yourself.1. If a diver or person needs rescue, first consider
whether you need to enter the water at all. If you can
extend a line or pole to the person or aid via a boat,
that’s always better.

I'm already in the water, I'm within an arm's reach of my buddy. Are you and PADAI suggesting that I exit the water, find a pole and then return so that I can fend my buddy off with the pole, or what?

b. If inwater rescue is required, consider whether you have the equipment
and training necessary.

I don't need any equipment to complete a in-water rescue (though a snorkel is nice if the victim is not breathing). But since I've never taken a PADI rescue course, or any rescue course for that matter, I guess I should let my buddy die, even though I've taught many rescue courses, authored standards for such courses, and been asked by the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society and the National Science Foundation to advise them on such issues.
c. If inwater rescue is required, consider whether you can reasonably
expect to accomplish the rescue without getting into trouble yourself.[/QUOTE]"A Man's Got to Know His Limitations" -- Harry Callahan. I know mine and it's good that you know yours, but I'd like to know who died and willed you the right to pass judgment on anyone else's?

 

[meierdierck]

sorry I bow to your superior skills and acknowledge your obvious mastery of the subject at hand,
you are 100% correct in everything, and you are not the total douchebag I thought you were last night, thank you for taking the time to straighten me out, I just hope when I have an issue there is someone as brave, good looking, and well thought out as you there to save my sorry ass, you win, you are the best rescuer ever, you know far more than me, padi, and anyone else that has ever had a thought on this subject, thank you, I have learned my lesson, i regret any and all thoughts on this subject,
ps, i didnt know you were already in the water, that changes EVERYTHING....
pps, how does one become a rescue diver instructor without ever taking a rescue course? NAUI standards cant be that low

 

[Thalassamania]

sorry I bow to your superior skills and acknowledge your obvious mastery of the subject at hand,
you are 100% correct in everything, and you are not the total douchebag I thought you were last night, thank you for taking the time to straighten me out, I just hope when I have an issue there is someone as brave, good looking, and well thought out as you there to save my sorry ass,

It is so nice to meet someone these days who is capable of learning, there is hope for you yet.

you win, you are the best rescuer ever,

Hardly, but having had the chance to work with some of the best over the years I have picked up few things here and there.

you know far more than me, padi,

That's does not appear to be saying much, else you'd not make the sort of mistaken statement at the end of your post that anyone who was not a newbie (or knew anything about the history of diving instruction) would eschew.

and anyone else that has ever had a thought on this subject, thank you, I have learned my lesson, i regret any and all thoughts on this subject,
ps, i didnt know you were already in the water, that changes EVERYTHING....

Gee ... kinda hard to not know that ... we are talking about accountability of buddies are we not? Anything else that you don't quite grasp?

pps, how does one become a rescue diver instructor without ever taking a rescue course? NAUI standards cant be that low

When I became an Instructor there was not such a thing as a separately priced product called "Rescue." Everything that is currently in the rescue class (and more) was included in the Basic Diver Course and all Instructor Candidates were tested on their ability to perform rescues at the IQC and to teach rescues at the ITC. Didn't you know that either?

 

[Doc Intrepid]

"Be sure not to confuse contractual and tort concepts of duty. There are different criteria for a court finding that a tort duty of care exists, as opposed to a contractual duty. You (or your heirs) couldn't sue me for breaching a "contract to be dive buddies." (At least not without some pretty darned bizarre facts.) You (or your heirs) could sue me for failing to act as a reasonably prudent dive buddy would act under the circumstances. That duty arose from our relationship, not strictly from a contractual agreement"...

Thank you for pointing that out.

"Virtually nothing in law is clear cut, so disputes about whether a certain act or omission is or is not the basis for liability keeps the court's open and lots of us attorneys employed."

And hence, I suspect, the continued interest in the topic on this forum.

While not questioning either Peter's pronouncements nor yours regarding the strictures of the law, the fact remains that (pardon me if this sounds "Clinton-esque") in my experience there is an extraordinarily large array of meanings attached to the word "relationship" in your quote above.

Certainly two individuals who have been diving together for a long time might easily be defined in this manner.

But in addition to 'insta-buddies' on charter boats, there are many circumstances on dive boats nationally (at least) where buddy "relationships" may be said to exist pre-dive only using the most tenuous and feeble definitions. Situations abound where a mob of divers follows one DM trailed by another, or where photographers scatter once underwater who never had any intentions of diving together to begin with.

I suspect that in a very large percentage of cases the word "relationship", with respect to dive buddies on charter boats, is nowhere near as clear cut as it may academically be defined. And as in the case with the example Peter quoted, while the underlying tenets may be clearly established, I suspect it will continue to be difficult to prove the facts regarding who did (or failed to do) what to whom and when, if there is only one surviving diver and no witnesses. Ultimately the wrongful death suit against Benedotti by the heirs of his dive buddy was dismissed, despite his relationship(s) with the deceased.

Be all that as it may, you were quite correct that the relationship between two declared dive buddies is different from that between two individuals casually pursuing more plebian pursuits together. As I stated earlier, I stand corrected.

(Yet one more reason for me to continue to dive solo, whenever not diving with long-established dive buddies!)

Dive safe,

Doc

 

[meierdierck]

ok, thanks again

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Be sure not to confuse contractual and tort concepts of duty. There are different criteria for a court finding that a tort duty of care exists, as opposed to a contractual duty. You (or your heirs) couldn't sue me for breaching a "contract to be dive buddies." (At least not without some pretty darned bizarre facts.) You (or your heirs) could sue me for failing to act as a reasonably prudent dive buddy would act under the circumstances. That duty arose from our relationship, not strictly from a contractual agreement.

Think of it in terms of driving. You hit a pedestrian, you're liable if you didn't act as a reasonably prudent driver would. (Heck. Maybe you had an unanticipated stroke, in which case, you would NOT be liable.) You wouldn't be sued for breaching any contractual relationship with the pedestrian.

Your duty to act with regard to your dive buddy does depend upon that person being your dive buddy, which comes about through an agreement, but the duty itself isn't contractual in nature.

As to your example, when we're walking down the road together, we don't have any expectation that that means that we'll come to each other's aid when attacked. (Of course, if we knew we were going into a rough neighborhood and I said "let's not" and you said "come with me, I'll protect you. These are my homies," then you would have breached a duty of care. One that you took upon yourself.

Virtually nothing in law is clear cut, so disputes about whether a certain act or omission is or is not the basis for liability keeps the court's open and lots of us attorneys employed.

That IMHO summarizes the difference between Gabe Watson and the average buddy pairing. He did reassure her and her family that he was trained, willing and able to "take care of her". That reassurance had an impact on her decision to begin that dive.

It does seem like there are some different definitions of what "A Duty of Care" is. Guy put it well when he pointed out there are jurisdictional differences.

When I was in the Ambulance Service one thing was made very clear to us. "If someone deteriorates or dies during an ambulance call it should always be the patient and not the paramedic!" Management did not like to have to explain to their employees families why their loved one put someone else's needs ahead of their dependants right to have them come home safely.

I view myself as a reasonably prudent and competent diver with a reasonable desire to survive. I will do everything I can with my training, experience and ability but given the choice I will put my responsibilities to my family ahead of playing hero in a no win situation!

 

[Peter Guy]

Thal -- thanks for getting the citation correct.

While the law may be an ass sometimes, it actually tends to be pretty reasonable in my mind -- especially in areas such as this which really deal with common sense.

Let's take a look at the buddy system -- What IS a buddy supposed to be?

As I understand the entry level training of just about every agency, a BUDDY is someone who is your redundant everything -- air supply, brain, knowledge, etc. The reason we dive as "buddies" is so that there is someone nearby who can help out if/when something goes wrong (not to mention to heighten the enjoyment of the dive). THAT is, I believe, the "entry level teaching" of the basic open water diver. (BTW, please feel free to correct me if anyone has an example of teaching to the contrary.)

This teaching, therefore, sets the standard of what "a reasonable and prudent" buddy is to do. Your "reasonable and prudent" buddy will NOT bury herself in the camera lens and let her buddy so swimming off by himself -- and the reasonably prudent camerman buddy won't go swimming off by herself. In other words, each has a responsibility to the other.

And isn't that how it should be? What's wrong with that AS THE GOAL of being a good buddy?

IF you are in the position of having an "insta-buddy" don't you WANT that buddy to be a good buddy? Or do you really want an "insta-buddy" to just ignore you and go off on her own? Me, I want my insta-buddy to be a good buddy and I'll do my best to be a good buddy to her. Is that not good diving?

I must admit I don't understand the whole angst about buddy liability. IF you are trained to be a good buddy, why wouldn't you dive as one?