How do you choose your Advanced Open Water speciality

[wetb4igetinthewater]

That sounds great--it really does.

About a dozen years ago some friends and I started doing something similar, but one of them was advised not to do that by an attorney. The attorney explained that if something went wrong on the dive, there would almost certainly be a lawsuit, and in that lawsuit, the plaintiff's attorney would do everything possible to prove that what you did in that class was not within normal best practices for scuba instruction, and the burden of proof would be on you to prove that the instructional practice you invented was safe. If, on the other hand, the content of your instruction was already approved by a major scuba agency, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove that the major scuba agency was wrong in approving the content of the course.

Has that ever happened though? Instructors have been doing workshops for quite a while. Just because I'm not aware of any litigation doesn't mean it hasn't occurred.

This is a similar stance as keeping insurance for non teaching status for 7 years after one stops teaching. Has an inactive instructor been sued?

Sounds like legal risk management.

 

[boulderjohn]

This is a similar stance as keeping insurance for non teaching status for 7 years after one stops teaching. Has an inactive instructor been sued?

We had an entire thread on that topic only weeks ago. The rules vary from state to state, but the statute of limitations on an injury claim is almost always 2 years, and insurance companies, including DAN, have lower cost "tail" policies to cover this.

 

[SlugLife]

Has that ever happened though? Instructors have been doing workshops for quite a while. Just because I'm not aware of any litigation doesn't mean it hasn't occurred.

This is a similar stance as keeping insurance for non teaching status for 7 years after one stops teaching. Has an inactive instructor been sued?

Sounds like legal risk management.

Getting insurance would likely be exceptionally difficult as well.

The legal argument mostly makes sense (INAL). Negligence usually requires you doing something negligent or reckless, however you relying on an established agency's material itself certainly would be very difficult to argue was reckless or negligent. If that dive-agency's material had a problem, they could certainly try suing that agency, but then it's not your (the instructor's) problem at that point.

If, on the other hand, the content of your instruction was already approved by a major scuba agency, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove that the major scuba agency was wrong in approving the content of the course.

I'm guessing your paraphrasing, but that's not exactly how the law works. If you, the individual, are sued in the US for negligence, they would have to say something you did was the problem. The issue isn't burden of proof, but rather them suing the wrong entity.


(Whether judges and juries actually follow the law is another matter. Sobbing families have been getting away with murder, when it comes to suing people who had nothing to do with the incident.)

 

[boulderjohn]

Has that ever happened though? Instructors have been doing workshops for quite a while. Just because I'm not aware of any litigation doesn't mean it hasn't occurred.

There have been many lawsuits of a similar nature, some seemingly absurd. We Skiles' wife sued pretty much everyone who had ever met her husband after he died.

One of the reasons you may never have heard of it is that there are very few occasions in which instructors teach classes that are not part of an agency-approved program.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

We had an entire thread on that topic only weeks ago. The rules vary from state to state, but the statute of limitations on an injury claim is almost always 2 years, and insurance companies, including DAN, have lower cost "tail" policies to cover this.

Sure but what percentage of instructors actually bother?

And in that other thread, was there an incident during a workshop that resulted in litigation?

 

[boulderjohn]

Sure but what percentage of instructors actually bother?

Beats me. I would think it would have to do with your individual history. I would think that if you knew for absolute certainty that there were no possible incidents in the two years prior to hanging things up, you would be sorely tempted to forego it.

And in that other thread, was there an incident during a workshop that resulted in litigation?

I don't know any threads about this. I also don't know any instructor who teaches anything that is not part of official curriculum.

The danger can be seen in a lawsuit from a class at the University of Alabama about 15 years ago. (The case has more complications than I will describe here.) It was an SSI OW class, and the instructor decided to have students do a "doff and don" exercise in which students were to dive to the bottom of the deep end of the pool, take off their scuba gear, swim to the surface, free dive back down, and put the gear back on. This was once a fairly popular exercise in scuba instruction, but it is not part of the SSI program or any other major agency program I know of because it is considered too dangerous. Some instructors still believe in it, though, and they still make it part of their instruction. This instructor was one of them, and she went a step further by not being with the students while they did this.

As you can no doubt guess, a student embolized and died doing an exercise that the instructor had added to the curriculum on her own. The onus to defend the safety of that exercise fell solely upon her and not the agency. If you create a workshop and think that "doff and don" exercise would be great, as this instructor did, you would be similarly on your own in a lawsuit. If you instead first submitted it to your agency for approval, your class would not be approved if that exercise were in it, and you would be duly warned.

EDIT: In my many years on ScubaBoard, I cannot begin to estimate how many times people have posted that the "Doff and Don" exercise described here is perfectly safe and should be part standard OW instruction.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Beats me. I would think it would have to do with your individual history. I would think that if you knew for absolute certainty that there were no possible incidents in the two years prior to hanging things up, you would be sorely tempted to forego it.

When I was teaching for PADI, i was told how a plaintiff could add a previous instructor for an incident outside of training. I think that is a stretch, but that was the basis for being exact with documentation on all training conducted.

Not a question for you, but has that ever happened and what was the result?

I don't know any threads about this. I also don't know any instructor who teaches anything that is not part of official curriculum.

I just maintain it now as I'm inactive but will go back to active after my projects get going and I don't need to manage them so much. SDI requires that.

The danger can be seen in a lawsuit from a class at the University of Alabama about 15 years ago. (The case has more complications than I will describe here.) It was an SSI OW class, and the instructor decided to have students do a "doff and don" exercise in which students were to dive to the bottom of the deep end of the pool, take off their scuba gear, swim to the surface, free dive back down, and put the gear back on. This was once a fairly popular exercise in scuba instruction, but it is not part of the SSI program or any other major agency program I know of because it is considered too dangerous. Some instructors still believe in it, though, and they still make it part of their instruction. This instructor was one of them, and she went a step further by not being with the students while they did this.

Shaking my head.

As you can no doubt guess, a student embolized and died doing an exercise that the instructor had added to the curriculum on her own. The onus to defend the safety of that exercise fell solely upon her and not the agency. If you create a workshop and think that "doff and don" exercise would be great, as this instructor did, you would be similarly on your own in a lawsuit. If you instead first submitted it to your agency for approval, your class would not be approved if that exercise were in it, and you would be duly warned.

I think one has to take a hard look at anything that isn't currently taught, like buddy breathing (no point to it and there is risk), don/doff, and a host of other skills no longer taught.

EDIT: In my many years on ScubaBoard, I cannot begin to estimate how many times people have posted that the "Doff and Don" exercise described here is perfectly safe and should be part standard OW instruction.

Did you hear that John? That was the sound of my hand smacking my forehead. Denver is close enough for you to have heard it from Seattle.

My apologies in not correctly phrasing my question. It should have read has this ever happened when an instructor wasn't being a moron?