Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[letterboy]

Well Said, Thank You. Why must there always be someone to blame and therefore sue?

What do you mean someone should take responsibility for their actions?? That is absurd!!! I refuse to take responsibility for anything I do! It is not my fault it is the other guys fault!!

 

[HowardE]

Well Said, Thank You. Why must there always be someone to blame and therefore sue?

It's too bad isn't it. I think its an american thing. :shakehead

Ouch - this coffee is hot.

 

[Boatlawyer]

1: In other words... juries are not composed of a diver's peers. I've sat on a jury... my analysis of the system is that lawyers do not want thinking or intelligent people. They want people with as little subject knowledge as possible. This leaves the lawyers as the only "thinking" entities in the room. Between them and the judge 'facts' are presented according to how the arguement wishes to be presented. An interesting place to put people charged with being 'finders of fact'...

2: Defining a 'wreck'... ok... I'll bite. Let's assume that the term 'wreck' is a euphemism... it does not change the fact that it is a COMPLEX UNDERWATER STRUCTURE... indistinguishable in any practical way from a 'naturally occuring wreck' or a cavern structure.

The fact is that when the 'wreck' was prepared, it was done so with an understanding of the current 'best practices' of diving. I would argue that it was also preped with an assumption that those who did dive it would comply with the 'best practices' of diving when utilizing the structure.

One also has to ask the question, "Is their anything specifically unique about the SG that makes it MORE hazardous than the Doria... or Truk lagoon or any other existing structure that divers might choose to enter?"

3: No... the question is NOT deeper than "the conclusory statement that every diver takes his (or her) chances"... that is the question... the whole question and nothing but the question. To arbitrarily define a unique legal status to some structure while putting other into a 'non-letigious' category because they were "placed or constructed by God... who as yet we haven't found a way to sue"... is, bluntly... splitting the hair for self serving purposes.

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

J.R.

I'm a South Florida native and first hand witness to the circus diving is becoming here and in the Keys. As I previously reported, I'm not a trial lawyer, I do vessel transactions and have set up some dive ops. The only dog I have in this fight is a personal concern for the sport and an intellectual curiousity as to how I can help my dive op clients in a changing market. I'm not advocating more regulation or stronger laws. Just setting forth arguments that any first year law student would.

Frankly, you can whistle past the graveyard all you want and postulate on what you believe the law should be. My job is to anticipate the legal risks as the sport becomes more mainstream. To the extent that helps some on the board, I'm happy to contribute, and I don't even mind the constant barbs at my profession to do so!

Cheers and safe diving!

 

[mike_s]

Doc-

I'd wager that every diver on this board with more than 100 dives would disagree with the position I've argued. Trouble is juries are not typically composed of serious divers.

*IF* this went to some lawsuit trial, how likely would a civil defense lawyer be to even allow a diver on the jury? what about a highly experienced or technical diver? what about an instructor?

This isn't a "wreck." A "wreck" implies the vessel sank while still in service, nobody engaged in a gimmicky public relations campaign to put it there as an "artifical reef." That's a significant difference in my view.

I think you are correct that it was sunk as an artificial reef, however, it's being marketed as both a wreck and a artificial reef. From a diving perspective, it's still a wreck to be used for wreck diving. However, most certification agencies consider anything that is non-natural that is sunk to be a wreck. So in reality a bicycle sitting on the bottom meets that definition.

 

[Thalassamania]

J.R.

I'm a South Florida native and first hand witness to the circus diving is becoming here and in the Keys. As I previously reported, I'm not a trial lawyer, I do vessel transactions and have set up some dive ops. The only dog I have in this fight is a personal concern for the sport and an intellectual curiousity as to how I can help my dive op clients in a changing market. I'm not advocating more regulation or stronger laws. Just setting forth arguments that any first year law student would.

Frankly, you can whistle past the graveyard all you want and postulate on what you believe the law should be. My job is to anticipate the legal risks as the sport becomes more mainstream. To the extent that helps some on the board, I'm happy to contribute, and I don't even mind the constant barbs at my profession to do so!

Cheers and safe diving!

And I thank you for doing so. These are intellectually interesting questions and the answers will have a real effect on the form that diving in Keys takes in the future. If a SBer holds the personal opinion that the diver’s are at fault or that someone else should have done something that they didn’t is of no real import (beyond the SB’s avowed purpose of providing a forum). The legal questions raised are, however, of real import; and a discussion of the whys and wherefores is of real value to any diver who wants to better understand the issues rather than just “stand on personal principle” which is usually just doctrinaire noise that has no bearing on the issue.

 

[genenaples]

From the Keys Chamber Website: Artificial Reef Dive Medallions:
Sponsored by the Key Largo Chamber of Commerce
Upper Keys Artificial Reef Foundation

The Florida Keys is home to several different shipwreck projects and have combined to make South Florida one of the world's best wreck dive destinations. Beginning with the Eagle in Islamorada, and progressing with the USCG Cutters Bibb and Duane in Key Largo, the Upper Keys Artificial Reef Association has sunk the biggest and most grand shipwreck ever, the 510-foot Landing Ship Dock the U. S. S. Spiegel Grove .

Sinking ships to serve as dive attractions is a costly enterprise. The Spiegel Grove's cost was well over $1 million, as well as countless hours of coordination by project volunteers over a six year period. By overwhelming consensus the dive operators of the Upper Keys have agreed that diving access to these shipwrecks shall be by means of a dive medallion, in essence a voluntary contribution that will serve to repay the significant debt accrued in placing these dive attractions on the bottom.

 

[DeepBound]

This thread is so long and 90% of it isn't even about the accident.

Could anyone direct me to the posts with some facts? I don't have 2 days to read through 400+ posts.

If you guys want to talk about dive law, why don't you start a thread about that. I want to read about the accident, what went wrong, and what could have been done differently.

Edit: I saw a reference to a friend of one of the divers posting some actual facts. Could anyone direct me to the general area where such facts were posted?

 

[HowardE]

Sinking ships to serve as dive attractions is a costly enterprise. The Spiegel Grove's cost was well over $1 million, as well as countless hours of coordination by project volunteers over a six year period. By overwhelming consensus the dive operators of the Upper Keys have agreed that diving access to these shipwrecks shall be by means of a dive medallion, in essence a voluntary contribution that will serve to repay the significant debt accrued in placing these dive attractions on the bottom.

Similar to the "suggested donation" at a museum

 

[HowardE]

This thread is so long and 90% of it isn't even about the accident.

Could anyone direct me to the posts with some facts? I don't have 2 days to read through 400+ posts.

If you guys want to talk about dive law, why don't you start a thread about that. I want to read about the accident, what went wrong, and what could have been done differently.

have you tried Google?

 

[Missdirected]

And I thank you for doing so. These are intellectually interesting questions and the answers will have a real effect on the form that diving in Keys takes in the future. If a SBer holds the personal opinion that the diver’s are at fault or that someone else should have done something that they didn’t is of no real import (beyond the SB’s avowed purpose of providing a forum). The legal questions raised are, however, of real import; and a discussion of the whys and wherefores is of real value to any diver who wants to better understand the issues rather than just “stand on personal principle” which is usually just doctrinaire noise that has no bearing on the issue.

Very well said. I think, perhaps, some who have not followed all the posts by BoatLawyer think she is against personal responsibility. She is not. Just trying to foster some thought provoking discussion as to what may happen or how some could see it.

DeepBound, that is in the last page or two.