Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[Boatlawyer]

And that is why lawyers should be kept far, far away from recreational activities. Far away. As in the next planet!
Rick

Good luck with that.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Good luck with that.

We can hope. The saprophages masquerading as trial lawyers have already all but totally killed general aviation. A few "home run" cases will kill diving too.
Rick

 

[Boatlawyer]

i am arguing that there is no duty, thus no neglience. i would try to wiggle out at the Motion to Dismiss level, and then at the Summary Judgment level and never get to trial.

As would ever other defense attorney. I think there is enough disputed material fact to get way past either. But I do agree it will never get to trial. It will settle way before then. If there is an insurer and no clear sovereign immunity, the settlement will be substantial, and without the making of some dangerous precedent.

This case won't see the light of trial, but I believe it highlights the danger of disneyfying diving. The SG ain't the Andrea Doria, it is easy to get too and highly marketed as a tourist attraction.

That, Andy, is what you should be getting exercised about, not whethe UKARC has any liability.

 

[J.R.]

And if, in fact the UKARC has made any repairs to the ship post sinking, it could be argued that they undertook the duty to maintain, regardless of what the advertising says the money is for.

Ya' know... this thread is getting a bit silly in my point of view... let's face a few facts...

The dangers of diving a wreck... ANY wreck, go far beyond simply getting lost and drowniing... a wreck is a thing in transition. Time and tide change it... it erodes, corrodes, collapses. Things fall off. Things take up habitation in it...

The very concept that a wreck can be 'maintained' is beyond the pale of common sense. Perhaps in the short run minor things can be tended to... but to what end?

If one wants to look at liability... let's consider those who provide "maps" to it... do the maps need an 'expiration date' or a disclaimer put on them that states that the map was "reasonably accurated at the time of its construction but may no longer be valid and a the diver assumes all risk in its use"... and then require a diver to sign a current waiver before using the map?

What about the liability associated with the State of Florida for even putting the wreck out there in the first place... "Did they post very large and visible signs on the wreck that state "this is a dangerous site where death or injury can occur" so that divers have one las final warning (labeling) before their final entry into the environment? What about the liability of all those who dive on it and spread their tales of daring do in such a manner as to provide the cheese for the trap?

Are the above silly? Yea... I'd say they are... But the point here is... if you're looking for trouble you'll find it. It isn't hard. In the final analysis, the legal system does not seem to be trying to prevent accidents... simply make a buck by laying off the individual's responsibilities in a known hazardous activity on anybody with a buck in their pocket who was anywhere in the vacinity.

We talk about 'qualified divers'... "diving beyond one's skill level'... etc., etc... the FACT is that no two divers who get an OW card come out of the course with the same skill level. They have the same "training"... but their ability to put that training to use will vary by the diver... so... how in the name of Mortimer Snerd is some dive op going to make an intelligent and informed assessment of that diver's 'ability'?

Then let's take a look at lawyers... Ok... you initiate a lawsuit within the parameters of the legal system... you make a good (not necessarily rational... just *good* arguement) to a jury and you win an award. Did you *fix* the problem or did you let it continue? If you didn't fix anything and aren't yelling and screaming that a clear and present danger exists should YOU share in the liability for any future issues?

I gotta' admit... this is kinda' fun... let's see how many peripheral contributors we can find to a disaster... I could go on for hours!!! (But I won't...)

The simple and unadorned fact is that ANY structure is dangerious... ships sink for a variety of reasons and while a 'preped' vessel being intentionally sunk for the purposes of serving as an artifical reef may be *somewhat* less hazardous than a vessel sunk by collision or other cause... both are extremely dangerous and will continue to get more so over time.

ANY arguement against this shows a complete failure to grasp the fundimental realities of diving and should probably disqualify an individual from getting into any body of water deeper than their bathtub....

Safety for a dive is the responsibility of the diver... period. It is the diver's responsibility to understand the dangers of the dive they are making and to approach/equip the dive in such a manner that they can safely execute the dive and return.

If we truely want things to be *safe* the first thing we need to do is to stop falsely marketing (ie, making statements or claims, real or implied) ANY concept of safety. It has always been said that the first step in solving a problem is to accept the fact that there IS a problem... likewise, the first step in being safe is to recognize that there is a danger. To do anything to minimize or mitigage that danger could be seen to encourage less cautious behavior and a lowering of the natural defenses (fear) we are all supposed to have. Perhaps the *error* here, if one exists at all, is in doing ANY prep work on a wreck short of cleaning contaminants.

Idealism with regard to safety is *nice*... but it will get me killed. I don't choose to die ergo I will not relinquish ANY of my authority to plan my dive to ANYONE... ever. If I screw up... my bad... my consequences... But I absolutely refuse to put my faith in anybody else's judgement.

Grumble... grumble... grumble...

 

[Boatlawyer]

Oh, I almost forgot one important fact, the living witness is a lawyer and JUDGE. He will be great in depositions. Any prejudice against him as an attorney is likely to be mitigated because he was not an ambulance chaser, but rather a judge. This is a trial lawyer's dream, only thing better is if the witness were a lawyer and a nun.

 

[Missdirected]

You don't think the survivor's background will make a difference - either way? He is a diver as well as a an attorney and judge.

And that is why lawyers should be kept far, far away from recreational activities. Far away. As in the next planet!
Rick

This one is right in the middle of it - he survived. I think it will be interesting to see which way he goes. Being a diver, he knows all of our fears. I just wonder. I am guessing he will tell his story. He already has to his friend who was on here early in the thread.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Oh, I almost forgot one important fact, the living witness is a lawyer and JUDGE. He will be great in depositions. Any prejudice against him as an attorney is likely to be mitigated because he was not an ambulance chaser, but rather a judge. This is a trial lawyer's dream, only thing better is if the witness were a lawyer and a nun.

I must say that I completely disagree with your apparent position.

It is beyond rational that any wreck on the bottom of the sea, much less one that has been rotated laterally by the force of a Category IV hurricane and subjected to the normal degradation and weakening of every load-bearing structure within it, could ever be maintained, by anyone - at any price - so as to constitute a "safe" playground for recreational divers.

Who is responsible for ensuring that Mt. Everest is 'safe' for climbers? Ought the more difficult pitches be gated off and chained shut so that the foolhardy might not attempt them? How about the winter storms that claimed the many lives documented by Jon Krakauer in his book "Into Thin Air"? Should permits to climb and Sherpa contracts become null and void if storms suddenly materialize?

Any notion at all of any "duty" on anyone's part, beyond that of the divers themselves, is a slippery slope. It is precisely what is closing off the caves in Florida to cave divers, because private land owners on whose land the cave openings exist are afraid of getting sued by diver's estates - when it was the divers themselves who held sole responsibility for getting themselves both into and back out of the caves.

The fact that this wreck was deliberately placed as an artificial reef means nothing in terms of risk management. It is no one's responsibility to ensure that it is safe for anyone. If a diver does not wish to incur risk, do not enter it. If you enter it, you de facto incur the risk.

To begin with an assumption that 'someone is responsible' for some negligence that resulted in this outcome, aside from the divers themselves, is IMHO a specious argument. The wrecks are there, just like Mt. Everest. They are what they are.

Dive them or not, the choice is up to (and ONLY to) each individual diver.

Regards,

Doc

 

[HowardE]

I must say that I completely disagree with your apparent position.

It is beyond rational that any wreck on the bottom of the sea, much less one that has been rotated laterally by the force of a Category IV hurricane and subjected to the normal degradation and weakening of every load-bearing structure within it, could ever be maintained, by anyone - at any price - so as to constitute a "safe" playground for recreational divers.

Who is responsible for ensuring that Mt. Everest is 'safe' for climbers? Ought the more difficult pitches be gated off and chained shut so that the foolhardy might not attempt them? How about the winter storms that claimed the many lives documented by Jon Krakauer in his book "Into Thin Air"? Should permits to climb and Sherpa contracts become null and void if storms suddenly materialize?

Any notion at all of any "duty" on anyone's part, beyond that of the divers themselves, is a slippery slope. It is precisely what is closing off the caves in Florida to cave divers, because private land owners on whose land the cave openings exist are afraid of getting sued by diver's estates - when it was the divers themselves who held sole responsibility for getting themselves both into and back out of the caves.

The fact that this wreck was deliberately placed as an artificial reef means nothing in terms of risk management. It is no one's responsibility to ensure that it is safe for anyone. If a diver does not wish to incur risk, do not enter it. If you enter it, you de facto incur the risk.
To begin with an assumption that 'someone is responsible' for some negligence that resulted in this outcome, aside from the divers themselves, is IMHO a specious argument. The wrecks are there, just like Mt. Everest. They are what they are.

Dive them or not, the choice is up to (and ONLY to) each individual diver.

Regards,

Doc

Well said Doc - I agree 100% with a bold emphasis on a point I believe I've stated earlier in the thread.

 

[ScubaTub]

thanks for nevertheless joining the speculative and esoteric thread from rigtheous armachair analysists, i guess...

I have also been a trial lawyer for 25 years. All the quasi-legal analysis has been distracting. I won't EVEN weigh-in on THAT string. I agree with YOUR general position on diver responsibility.

The cavern diving analyses have been very good reading and better discusssion for THIS board. As firemen, we use similar techniques to search smokey unfamiliar environments. As rescue workers, the emotional trauma from these projects can be heavy - especially when they are over and there is time to reflect. Everyone touching the event is to be commended. Without their efforts there would never have been a CHANCE, even though the results were not successful this time.

Peace and love.

 

[genenaples]

Ya' know... this thread is getting a bit silly in my point of view... let's face a few facts...

But I absolutely refuse to put my faith in anybody else's judgement.

Grumble... grumble... grumble...

Well said JR. I am trained for wreck, deep, etc, etc. I know the risks, I try not to make stupid mistakes. I dive the SG regularly enough and do upper deck penetrations. Trying to attempt some sort of half baked tech diving while on tourists boats makes no rational sense. No surface support available, going into areas that are off limits to divers? Narcosis caused it? Come on folks, when you descend a 75' vertical shaft that you barely fit in, after the first 10 feet you know you should not be there. These guys were very exp divers, someone who knows them personally says one of them logged more than 5000 dives. It reminds me of the books I read when I first started diving (Rouses getting killed, Andrea Doria Deaths, etc) All the "exp" divers quoted in those books said the same thing.... The more you dive the less fearful you become. Is that what happened here? Too much exp and not enough fear or healthy respect for your surroundings? Want more mystery... Exactly one year to the day earlier than this accident, I recovered a free diver that died on the Thunderbolt wreck in the Keys. Most likely shallow water black out, who knows. My point, the sea is a mysterious and unforgiving place, when I have logged 5000 dives I hope I am still terrified by that mystery every time I splash.