Suggestion Legal Forum

[ScubaDocER]

I was reading a post by Peter Guy today that got me to thinking. He commented on the amount of misinformation that exists about legal issues concerning diving. Is there an interest in creating a Legal Forum that would address the plethora of legal questions related to diving that seem to appear on the Board? Some questions get asked over and over and I did not know if the legal folks on SB would be willing to help moderate it or at least make sure it's moving in the right direction. We have a Medical Forum here, why not a Legal Forum. What say yee?

 

[ScubaDocER]

For what it's worth, my opinion is, Why Not? It couldn't be worse than the current situation.

I agree. I have read a number of posts from attorneys on the Board who decided to respond to what they perceived as incorrect information or just bad advice. Attorneys are already posting on the Board. It's just that their responses are spread out in different places. My suggestion is to simply pool these insightful responses into one location where they can be easily found and where people can ask a specific question to those with experience. Not trying to reinvent the wheel nor place anyone in a difficult position. Just trying to consolidate the responses into one forum.

 

[HowardE]

Food for thought:

We used to have a DAN forum on SB. We removed it. Why? The only valid response that DAN could give on the internet was, "Call DAN" - not to mention that DAN is also an insurance company, and they were restricted very much to the information they could provide on the internet, as there are privacy issues involved.

I would also imagine, that any truly reputable attorney would be hesitant to make statements that could come back to bite him in the ass on a public forum.

An attorney giving out personalized free advice on a public forum would only serve to confuse people who don't know that their laws may be different in their state, country, locality, whatever. Personally, I see no need to further clutter the 500 + forums on ScubaBoard with something that in the end would be mostly useless, and most importantly, could reflect negatively on the attorney, and ScubaBoard.com.

 

[ScubaDocER]

Food for thought:

We used to have a DAN forum on SB. We removed it. Why? The only valid response that DAN could give on the internet was, "Call DAN" - not to mention that DAN is also an insurance company, and they were restricted very much to the information they could provide on the internet, as there are privacy issues involved.

I would also imagine, that any truly reputable attorney would be hesitant to make statements that could come back to bite him in the ass on a public forum.

An attorney giving out personalized free advice on a public forum would only serve to confuse people who don't know that their laws may be different in their state, country, locality, whatever. Personally, I see no need to further clutter the 500 + forums on ScubaBoard with something that in the end would be mostly useless, and most importantly, could reflect negatively on the attorney, and ScubaBoard.com.

Maybe I am looking at this in an overly simplified way. My reference source comes from my participation in the Medical Forum. I am an Emergency Medicine Physician. I have no problems stating that so that people can have a reference source when I try to answer a question. I consider my self reputable. I consider TSandM, DocVikingo, Dr Deco, and others (sorry if I missed anyone) to be reputable. On a quite regular basis they have chosen to give FREE medical advice and opinions to people they are trying to help. Sometimes they respond, sometimes they choose not too. Their information is far from useless and doesn't seem to have reflected negatively on them nor on Scubaboard.com. We are professionals who have donated our time and energy trying to provide accurate information to the best of our ability. If we (the SB Physicians) can do it then why can't other professionals?

I am not asking a reputable attorney to come onto to Scubaboard and form a legal bond with digital text across a screen. Just as I would ask a reputable physician to do the same. Would I would ask a reputable attorney to do is provide suggestions and guidance to those who ask IF they feel comfortable doing so and IF they feel they have the experience to do so. As an EM physician there are MANY areas in which I am not qualified to respond and chose not to. I don't see why attorneys could not do the same if they felt similarly. As noted previously, attorneys are already responding on Scubaboard. Just not in an organized forum. If we have 500 + forums, then surely 501 + forums would not bring the greatness of SB to its knees. And I disagree that it would be "useless". I can think of several forums that would fit that description. Why not try it and see where it goes if the SB attorneys (a generic term) are willing to contribute. Again, without their input, it's a dead issue anyway.

 

[ScubaRich]

The main difference between a medical fourm and a legal fourm is, Doctors try to make medical advice as easy as possible to understand so you don't get tripped up and die. Lawyers make it as complicated as possible to purposely trip you up, bill you until you die, then sue your estate.

Seriously though, The idea sounds great but you are going to have "experts" contradicting each other so often, That most non "experts" would stop reading the threads.

 

[RJP]

Maybe I am looking at this in an overly simplified way...

I don't see why attorneys could not do the same if they felt similarly.

I think that what we're seeing - and not passing judgement on it - is that it goes directly against the nature of a lawyer to "feel similarly" about this issue. The conditional "if" aspect of this simply doesn't exist. Sort of like saying "I'm comfortable on dry land, so I don't see why fish don't come out of the water if they felt similarly." Given that they are fish, the condition of "feeling similarly" is just never going to happen.

To be a good lawyer you need to be able to see potential liability, risk, and downside EVERYWHERE. If you asked your malpractice attorney or insurance carrier whether it's a good idea for you to participate in medical discussions on a public website, I'm certain he'd tell you that...

• there is a risk, however small
• that the potential upside is not sufficient to take that risk
• that he specifically advises you NOT to do so

From a strict legal standpoint it's pretty clear that'd be the right legal advice.

No reason to suspect they wouldn't follow that same advice themselves.

 

[Peter Guy]

ScubaDoc -- as I believe you know, TSandM is my wife so I'm used to seeing her provide her medical opinions online. We've discussed potential liability issues and concluded they just aren't significant.

Also as you know, I've been involved in several SB discussions of legal issues. I've been very pleased that in almost all cases, THE ATTORNEYS who have responded, have pretty much agreed on what "the law is" in any particular case. Which is not to say that the non-attorneys who have responded have been wrong all the time, but, quite frankly, a lot of them have been wrong.

I have no idea if there would be any value to a "Legal Forum" run, and moderated, like the Medical Forum -- but again, it couldn't be worse than the current mishmash.

BTW, I was at a Dive Club meeting last night and there was a lot of discussion about liability -- most of it wrong and misguided. People are way too hung up on "getting sued" and make pretty stupid decisions (IMHO) to avoid the unlikely and, all too often, as a result, put themselves in an even worse position.

 

[The Chairman]

I should point out at this time, that we already have a "Shark Forum"...

 

[Couv]

I think it would be a very interesting forum…….and I nominate Peter to be the Mod.

 

[Gombessa]

At least for me, the liability/attorney-client relationship issue is a bit of a red herring, that's not why I would decline to participate to a great extent in such a forum.

Rather, it's because I feel that you can't drill down very deep into any legal question without running into a lot of ambiguity. It's one thing for an attorney to jump in and correct a layman's interpretation of the commerce clause ("if you're not selling anything, it doesn't apply to you" is one of my favorites) or the basic, general definitions of legal concepts and terms of art that are often misunderstood (gross negligence, intent, rescue doctrine, etc.), but I don't know what dive flag or insurance laws are in Ohio or if North Carolina has adopted statutes that supersede common law trespass, etc... For many of the questions I envision people asking about, the only real answer would be to seek local counsel.

For the doctors in the house, it's as if gas bubbling resulting in lower body paralysis following a missed deco stop is diagnosable as DCS in Florida, but Tay-Sachs in Georgia (an extreme and silly example to be sure, but applicable to smaller factors and prongs that may be important in determining whether you even have a claim). For the most part, medicine and physiology don't really change from town to town and where you happen to be, but law is a manmade construct and the rules can and do vary from place to place.

Perhaps I'm being a bit too narrow-minded about this; if there is a legal forum I'd certainly read it and try to help, I'm just not sure how much I'd be able to contribute beyond the broad brush strokes that may end up being of little relevance to the questioner.

 

[livinoz]

To be honest, I saw this quite differently. I didn't ever think of it as a forum for personal legal advice; I don't believe you can "diagnose" and "treat" a serious problem over the internet, but you can advise someone to see their local doctor/attorney, correct a point of law or a misconception about a health issue, or give simple advice, etc. I saw it more as an adjunct for the accidents and incidents thread, where this idea originated. To me its purpose was more to look at points of law in a general sense, as can be seen in the Watson and Swain threads. The Swain thread has been delving into the legal area and because of that has been moved to the Non-Diving Related Stuff. Some people do not think that is an appropriate place for a serious discussion about a "dive-related" accident, even if it now is more a discussion about the trial itself and the evidence presented.

How this would reflect negatively on SB I don't quite understand. From what I've seen, I personally think the dissemination of incorrect legal information is more a problem. ItsBruce and Under-Exposed have done a great job in rectifying that.

I think it is a pity that liability seems to be the main stumbling block for some. In that case would any advice given on here that could potentially lead to a person having an accident or incident while diving be cause for litigation? After all there are many and varied opinions on all aspects of diving presented on SB, and in the end it's up to the individual as to which "advice" he follows.