Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[drbill]

I dove the Grove two years ago. One of the divers in our group seemed pretty non-chalant about the dive, separating from my buddy (Andrea) and I at depths in excess of 100 feet and heading off on his own to distances where there was no hope of him relying on either of us (he was unbuddied). IMHO he had no business diving that wreck essentially solo and with no redundancy.

I cannot place any blame on the operator. They told him to stick with us, but he wandered off. I do lots of solo diving but would never have done what he did unless I had fully redundant gear and some knowledge of the site (it was my first time on the wreck).

While I cannot speak to this incident until all the facts are in, it certainly sounds as if many mistakes were made by the divers involved based on the reports to-date. Unless an operator has a DM in the water with the divers, I can't see where they have much responsibility for what they do when "out of sight." I've seen too many divers completely disregard dive briefings and the best efforts of operators, and thereby place themselves in jeopardy due to their own lack of attention.

 

[J.R.]

If the State of Florida, by partnering with the UKARC, undertook a duty to make the SG relatively safe for diving by making pass throughs and cut-outs, and, more importantly, BY BLOCKING DANGEROUS ENTRANCES, and then inspected the SG periodically to make sure those entrances were still blocked, then a jury could find they assumed the duty to maintain the vessel. If the entrance in question should have been blocked, but wasn't, then it may be argued that UKARC failed in that duty and that the failure, in part, contributed to the tragedy. Anyway, that's the argument.

That's a lot of "ifs"... and the "jury could find" is interesting... exactly how much persuasion would be required... how honestly could diving be protrayed to them before they were "educated" sufficiently to find for the plaintiff?

Sorry... while I understand your point, I find that it is founded in on premises that elect to minimize the individual accountability of the principle and to ignore choice and the human element. It assumes the SG to be a static universe and ignores the fact that it is physically impossible to monitor anything other than external structures with any degree of certainty and it fails to contemplate the character of the wreck 50 years from now when internal collapse will change the fundimental nature of the wreck (excuse me, "underwater structure") ... or perhaps it is intended to lay ground work for a future law banning diving on wrecks deemed "unsafe" by some arbitrary authority...

It *seems* to require prescience on the part of a certain class and demand that they anticipate every and all untoward actions that might occur. While it *seems* fundimentally reasonable to accept the premise of "checking entrances" on a prima facia basis... to accept that arguement opens the door to... "well... if they're checking entrances... what else should they be checking"... and the doors of speculation and second guessing are thrown open to every creative interpretion of what safety means that can be concocted over an open bar tab.

The assumption seems to be that it is possible to render something safe. Years ago I was involved in physical security activities... when I began my education the very first thing I was taught was that there is no such thing as security. ANY security system can be breached by a sufficiently motivated individual... security is principly a function of individuals... not equipment.

Likewise, safety is not a function of law... it is principlay a function of individuals. Have you considered that the illusion of safety through legislation and legal philosophy might well be contributory to the increase in accidents? Look at the case of 'child proof caps' on products... are you aware that the incidence of accidents has acutally gone UP since they were required? Why? Well... a false sense of security. People are less inclined to put up medicine bottles because "little Johnny can't get past the top"... or leave them open because they're too hard to open and close... or becuse they're lazy.

Perhaps this *IS* where we have allowed our world to migrate to... if so... it is sad because it argues to me that right and wrong has been reduced to simply what one can persuade a group of 12 people (more or less) to agree to...

... just some thoughts...

 

[J.R.]

They were providing a ride to the Spiegel Grove to 3 instructors and one certified technical diver.

Just for my own clarification, does anybody know if the ride provided to them specifically or were they a part of a larger herd on the boat?


I'm not a subject matter expert by any means but based on what I've read here it seems that the prinicple factor in all of this was opting out on safety lines... Is that pretty much it?

 

[ctnitroxdiver2006]

First of all, condolences to all the families and friends of the divers lost on the SG. After reading all the replies to this story, I decided to put my 2 cents in.. As for the dive operator; I feel that the dive operator should not bear responsibility on the events that happened because of the qualifications of the divers. However, I do believe that the divers should have notified the Captain or DM of what their plan was. I make it a strict habit to notify the Captain or DM of my plan, dive time, breathing gas and emergency routine. Many times in writing. As for me, I carry 2 bags, yellow and red, 2 slates, a reel and spool , pony bottle(s) along with other redundant equipment on every deep dive. If the Captain or DM sees a red bag, there's a problem and the attached slate will describe the problem. A yellow bag is an accent line if needed. It may not be a full proof system, but I feel it gives me and the divers a secondary team above if we run short on gas, or any thing we may run into. I have heard many comments from other divers on a boat such as " diving the Titanic?", however I have seen my share of panicked divers shooting to the surface, being taken to hospitals and chambers.
I won't assess what happened as I was not there or place blame, but maybe this type of plan will be used by others to avoid what happened. I have many dives on the SG and love the dive site and do not want dive sites regulated by the govt. I think the dive community can regulate itself better than any govt organization.
It is sad to read reports of divers losing their lives, we all at times may go beyond our skill or comfort level, or just get stuck in that spot, but at the end of the day, its all supposed to be fun....

 

[The Chad]

Welcome to the good ole US of A, where everyone else is responsible for what you do except of course yourself. Thats why we make thousands upon thousands of laws so the government can protect us from ourselfs. Then, since there are so many laws, we need to hire someone that does nothing but sit around and try to keep themselves updated with all those great new laws.

Lets say a guy jumps off a bridge to his death. Forget about him...his parents diden't hug him enough at night before he went to bed or something. But hey, lets sue the guy that owns the bridge, the people that finaced the building of the bridge, the general contractor, and anyone else we can dig up that had anything to do with the bridge. Because at the end of the day it comes down to who we can make a buck from, and lets face it the dead guy can't pay.

C'mon poeple lets take some responsibility for our own actions and quit lining the pockets of fat attys. Anyone know the end of the joke...."Whats a thousand attorneys chained together at the bottom of the sea"? Looks like I won't be diving with any attorneys soon!

I know the joke is boarder line inappropriate given the current situtation. Bad choices aside, my heart goes out to the familes and all those involed, and I wish the outcome was different. We all make mistakes, we just don't expect to pay for them this dearly.

 

[Thalassamania]

I know the joke is boarder line inappropriate given the current situtation.

Then why do you bother?

 

[The Chad]

because last time I checked it's still a free country

 

[uspap]

All this is kind of interesting. In other threads people talk about if a dive buddy can be sued for "allowing" the other buddy to die. Now the dive buddy is a lawyer and nobody goes there. I'm not saying the buddy is responsible so don't flame me. I think it's sad how common sence is not a factor in the legal system. Boatlawyer is playing Devil's advocate (in my opinion) and giving a scenario of how a trial lawyer may proceed. I could give another scenario of how the defence could counter but it would be inapropriate. After all I'm not a trial lawyer nor is boatlawyer. It would all be speculation. It comes down to who can twist the facts the best on any given day to make 12 people believe a load of crap.

 

[Boatlawyer]

So, here's another thought for us speculators and ponderers. And since this is now an official "legal" thread, I feel "suddenly" free to add more theories to the mix.

Here's what the Scuba-do release says about penetration: I affirm that I will not dive in an environment that is beyond my training level and ability. I agree to notenter into or penetrate an overhead environment. This pertains to all wreck diving.

Now, latest reports indicate that the group had done the same dive into the pump room the previous day, which would have been in apparent violation of their promise on the release.

Does it change anyone's opinion if the dive op knew that contrary to the release the divers had penetrated the wreck (in an allegedly forbidden area no less) and yet allowed them back on the boat the very next day, signing the very same release, to do the very same dive???

 

[J.R.]

Boatlawyer is playing Devil's advocate (in my opinion) and giving a scenario of how a trial lawyer may proceed. I could give another scenario of how the defence could counter but it would be inapropriate. After all I'm not a trial lawyer nor is boatlawyer. It would all be speculation. It comes down to who can twist the facts the best on any given day to make 12 people believe a load of crap.

Yep... my thoughts as well... and, as nobody should dive (or play devil's advocate) alone... I've taken it on myself to be the dive buddy... besides... how much conversation can ya' really have over which set of fins is the best???



Besides... I ain't a 'first year law student'... some I'm learnin' me some stuff here...

To: Boatlawyer... all joking aside... I have appreciated the dialogue... whether agreement is or is not reached in this forum... it makes ya' think... and thinkin' is never a bad thing...