Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

shakey,

I for one do NOT want the government to be my mommy. I suspect that is the mind of the majority of people on this board too. There is way too MUCH restriction in the name of safety in my mind. What's next? A guard rail around the grand canyon? If people are too daft to do the research and make up their own mind, or they do the research and decide with all the information at hand that the risk is worth whatever putatative gains there are, then I for one fully support their (and my own) rights to kill them selves in the act. I believe it is every mans inalienable right to determine what risks they personally feel they can bear, and necessarily to assume the costs of those risks being realized.

I'll remember that next time I'm sued for malpractice. In theory, what you say is correct and I agree with it. I am not asking for the government to be our mommy or for divers to abdicate their responsibiltiy. I simply wondered out loud if certain dive sites are riskier than others and if so, how does a diver find out about it and does anybody do anything to correct the situation. If six fatalities occurred in one intersection in your neighborhood in one year, you'd like to a) know about it b) have something done to fix it. That doesn't mean closing the road, but it also doesn't mean throwing up your hands and saying "drive at your own risk" either. The average diver presumes that commercial diver operators are not going to expose them to needless risk, waiver or not. This is recreational diving, folks, not full contact karate.

 

[HowardE]

I'll remember that next time I'm sued for malpractice. In theory, what you say is correct and I agree with it. I am not asking for the government to be our mommy or for divers to abdicate their responsibiltiy. I simply wondered out loud if certain dive sites are riskier than others and if so, how does a diver find out about it and does anybody do anything to correct the situation. [snip] The average diver presumes that commercial diver operators are not going to expose them to needless risk, waiver or not. This is recreational diving, folks, not full contact karate.

It's not so complex. If you penetrate a wreck, you can die much easier than if you don't. If you dive, you can die. It's not comparable to malpractice. You are not going to a doctor with the expectation of being cured, fixed, or have a successful surgery. You are partaking in a risky activity/sport that has assumed risks (death) every time you do it.

If six fatalities occurred in one intersection in your neighborhood in one year, you'd like to a) know about it b) have something done to fix it. That doesn't mean closing the road, but it also doesn't mean throwing up your hands and saying "drive at your own risk" either.

If six fatalities occur at an intersection because of car accidents, you would expect a stop sign yes. But again, you can't compare apples to oranges... almost everyone has a driver's license, and roads are maintained by the municipalities involved. We must comply with rules of the road, and there is LAW ENFORCEMENT to ensure compliance. SCUBA luckily is not this way.

- Who is really at fault for accidental death on a dive outing? Should we (responsible/safe) divers have to pay for other diver's mistakes? (I'm not making any claims toward this accident, but other accidents on the SG have been diver error)

I wouldn't want a great dive site to be deemed "unsafe" because of other people's miscues. (again, not saying that is what happened this time)

If diving the Spiegel Grove sounds like it's beyond your training, then DON'T DIVE it.

 

[mdb]

I do however think that a quality operator does a lot to ensure diver safety and isn't a glorified water taxi.

TomP: Very good comment. Lots of "water Taxi's" out there. Condolences to those lost.

 

[Thalassamania]

Scuba-do claims that they're just a bus out to the dive site: waiver

 

[HowardE]

Scuba-do claims that they're just a bus out to the dive site: waiver

They still gave briefings, and explained the dive site. Gave adequate warnings about the hazards that could be encountered, etc. All that I expect from a dive charter.

Personally, I don't want, nor do I expect guided tours. All I am looking for is a ride to the site.

 

[Thalassamania]

They still gave briefings, and explained the dive site. Gave adequate warnings about the hazards that could be encountered, etc. All that I expect from a dive charter.

Personally, I don't want, nor do I expect guided tours. All I am looking for is a ride to the site.

I don't support their claim or deny it, just reporting it.

There is not enough information in for me to form a real opinion yet.

 

[CBulla]

Do the waivers say "by the way, six people have died on this wreck in the last year" or whatever the number is? It's easy to say "know the risks" but this presumes that the risks are knowable...example; when I was jetskiing in a resort near Sanibel island, I saw some dorsal fins that look suspicious. I asked the operator how many shark attacks occurred in that area and he winked "none that you'll find out about" implying that the true incidence is kept as quiet as possible.

I'm a native to the area - he's lying. Every shark incident makes the news and is recorded in the shark attack registry. Think about it for a moment. You get bit by a roving bear trap and even a bite and release leaves traumatic damage to the soft tissues. Do you a) go back to your home/hotel and treat it with some peroxide and bandaids or b) go to the hospital and get the numerous holes in your body repaired so you stop bleeding? If you choose to head back home/hotel, have fun... if your going to the hospital, you'll be recorded.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/isafabout.htm

Seriously, regarding the Speigal - it wont be closed. I'm not going to speculate, but I have an idea. Difficulty in finding them.. Others already have the same conclusion.

Hmm... would that 20 mile stretch of death called US1 between Homestead and Key Largo be considered for closure because of a few deadly crashes?

 

[dave4868]

Scuba-do claims that they're just a bus out to the dive site: waiver

Just a quibble over semantics: "claim" implies an assertion open to challenge.

Their waiver "informs" the diver that the charter will provide only transportation to and from the dive site.

The diver signs it to acknowledge being informed.

Scuba-do's waiver is similar to those of charters here in the Northeast and I'm happy to sign them, in fact, I prefer charters with such waivers.

Scuba-do's reputation sounds good, and this incident shouldn't affect it, if viewed fairly.

Dave C

 

[nwscubamom]

Compare it to a mountain...

In my neck-of-the-woods we have Mt. Hood. Climbers often climb it, and quite often there are accidents and fatalities. Fatalities that require extensive climbing teams and rescue (or recovery) efforts to get the climbers (or bodies) out.

Do they close the mountain?

No. Of course not. Those undertaking the climb need to take on some responsibility themselves. Most do, and do it well - properly equipped, properly trained. However, due to the risk and financial burden a rescue poses to S&R teams and the government, there is one thing they're thinking now about requiring - locater beacons for the climbers.

But bottom line is, they don't close the mountain because people get in over their limits.

Same should go for the SG.

Just my 2 PSI

 

[TomP]

Originally Posted by Thalassamania
Scuba-do claims that they're just a bus out to the dive site: waiver

They still gave briefings, and explained the dive site. Gave adequate warnings about the hazards that could be encountered, etc. All that I expect from a dive charter.

Personally, I don't want, nor do I expect guided tours. All I am looking for is a ride to the site.

Howarde - I think your first paragraph indicates that you do expect more than a ride to [and from] the site and you'd be correct to do so. I don't think any of us would dive with an operator that told us to do backward rolls as they drove over the site

I think the real question here is how much one can infer about an operator based on the content of a waiver. Waivers are intended to limit the operators liability for any action or inaction on its part. Ironically, its the waiver that provides the operator the freedom to provide appropriate surface support, and in particular accident management, without undue concern that they may be putting their business and personal assets at risk.

Do some waivers go to far? Maybe, but i think that's more a reflection of our society than the operators.