Instructional liability

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
New York City
Through Google, I chanced upon a discussion on ScubaBoard about Baschuk v. Diver''s Way. That was my case - I represented the dive shop, wrote the brief and argued the case before the appellate court, resulting in the decision which upheld the PADI liability release as valid and binding. Any instructors with questions about how Baschuk may help or protect them - fire away.
 
Welcome to :sblogo:
:wave-smil :wave-smil
:chicken:
 
welcome aboard

that's certainly an interesting case ... here's a quick blurb:

On April 23, 1991, the plaintiff paid a tuition fee to enroll in a scuba diving course sponsored by the defendant at its facilities, which included a private swimming pool. The course was taught by an independent certified scuba diving instructor. At the beginning of the first class on May 1, 1991, the plaintiff read, filled out, and signed several required forms, including a statement of medical history and a liability release that exempted the defendant from all liability for personal injury to her during the course, caused by the defendant's negligence.

After submitting these forms to the instructor, and thus completing the enrollment process for the course, the plaintiff for the first time discussed her history of ear problems with the instructor and informed him that her physician knew of her participation in the class. The instructor told the plaintiff to get a medical note to this effect, but he did not follow up on the request. During the fourth session of the class, the plaintiff experienced a sharp pain in her ears. She was diagnosed as suffering from a punctured left eardrum and thereafter commenced this negligence action against the defendant. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis of the liability release.

The plaintiff's argument that the liability release applies only to claims arising during her actual class participation, and not to any negligent conduct that occurred during the prescreening process, i.e., the defendant's failure to fully investigate the plaintiff's medical statement before allowing her to enroll in the course, is without merit for several reasons. First, the plaintiff's claim of a "pre-enrollment" time period during which the defendant's negligence allegedly occurred, is not supported by the record. Even more significant, the record shows that the liability release signed by the plaintiff in clear and unequivocal language expressed the intent to relieve the defendant of all liability for personal injuries to the plaintiff caused by the defendant's negligence. Because of its clarity, precision, and specificity in absolving the defendant from the consequences of all negligence, the liability release is enforceable (see, Lago v Krollage, 78 NY2d 95, 99-100; Gross v Sweet, 49 NY2d 102, 107).


Julia Baschuk v. Diver's Way Scuba, Inc., 209 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
 
Even more significant, the record shows that the liability release signed by the plaintiff in clear and unequivocal language expressed the intent to relieve the defendant of all liability for personal injuries to the plaintiff caused by the defendant's negligence. Because of its clarity, precision, and specificity in absolving the defendant from the consequences of all negligence, the liability release is enforceable (see, Lago v Krollage, 78 NY2d 95, 99-100; Gross v Sweet, 49 NY2d 102, 107).

Is negligence a crime, and if so, how can a contract absolve one from it beforehand? I mean, can a contract absolve someone from a future crime?
 
An ear is one thing, and sets a precedent, but I doubt that this will stand the test of a wrongful death case involving demonstrable and significant negligence on the part of the LDS, Instructor or agency. What do you think Cliff?
 
daniel f aleman:
Is negligence a crime, and if so, how can a contract absolve one from it beforehand? I mean, can a contract absolve someone from a future crime?

no, negligence is not a crime.

you can't waive something that would be illegal. a contract can not absolve someone from a crime.

generally speaking, you can waive simple negligence only. most (if not all) states do not allow waiver of gross negligence, intentional torts, or criminal acts.
 
Thalassamania:
An ear is one thing, and sets a precedent, but I doubt that this will stand the test of a wrongful death case involving demonstrable and significant negligence on the part of the LDS, Instructor or agency. What do you think Cliff?

well ... if it is gross negligence, intentional tort, or a crime, the waiver will not cover it as stated above

but simple negligence will be covered by a properly drafted waiver.

this case basically stands for the proposition that once you sign a waiver, you are waiving any negligent act of the shop/instructor.

they tried to get around that by saying the negligent act happened BEFORE she signed the waiver, and the Court said "nope, not so."

in other words, you are watching a waive at work here. the shop might have been negligent in not making her get her ear doctor's ok to dive, but she had signed a waiver, so she had no recourse against the shop

the fact the her ears were hurt is not a significant fact here, imho. what part of her was hurt didn't play a part in the Court's reasoning
 
H2Andy:
well ... if it is gross negligence, intentional tort, or a crime, the waiver will not cover it as stated above

but simple negligence will be covered by a properly drafted waiver.

this case basically stands for the proposition that once you sign a waiver, you are waiving any negligent act of the shop/instructor.
Many fatalities that involve neglience involve gross negligence (or manslaughter for that matter). A waiver will provide protection only in cases of simple negligence (and realistically, I suspect in cases of rather simple injury).
 
simple negligence

what is the defining criteria of simple vs gross?

Is this subjective?
 
gross negligence
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property.
 

Back
Top Bottom