H2Andy
Contributor
Gombessa:
Legal & other issues from SG Mishap
- Thread starter shakeybrainsurgeon
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Ok... first, thank ya'll (again) for bearing with me as I asked a bunch of questions to get a foundational understanding of how and why releiveing dive-ops (the individuals most directly related to an individual's diving activities in a 'real time' basis) can and are placed in what I consider a 'special' liability category. Now that I have a bit better grasp of why it is acceptable in the eyes of the law for a dive-op to require that they be 'held harmless' for all acts (baring 'gross neglegance' or worse)... we get to the next facinating question.
If a dive-op, who clearly is 'transporting' divers (albet not from "port to port") and on whom the divers count on for 'surface support' (air proiders, entry and exit support, emergency services in the case of an accident, etc.)... then...
... how the heck can anybody exepct those who put the dive structure on the bottom to have any liability for anything that goes on in terms of using the structure over which they have no direct control regarding its use.
I'd note that:
1: ALL divers have been instructed via a structured and formal training process that wrecks and wreck penetration is a dangerous activity, that they should never do so without the skills and training necessary, and... in the specific case of the SG accident, had specifically agreed... ON THE SAME FORM AS THE HOLD HARMLESS PROVISIONS... that they would not penetrate the wreck.
2: The placing authority, while it may have made some efforts to minimize entanglements, close off obvious and clear hazards and, by placeing some areas 'off limits' provided notification on clear hazards to avoid... make no claims or representations as to the safety of the structure or its use let alone any that might be contrary to what divers have been educated on before getting their C-cards.... were made.
Seems to me that unless somebody can prove that an intentionally submerged structure represents a grossly more hazardous environment than a submerged structure that occured through collison or any other 'natural' method of finding the bottom of the ocean there is no way to hold them accountable for any accident that occurs on the structure...
... after all... we're not really customers employing a dive-op to provide surface support, transportation services and logistics for our activity... we're 'divers'...
If a dive-op, who clearly is 'transporting' divers (albet not from "port to port") and on whom the divers count on for 'surface support' (air proiders, entry and exit support, emergency services in the case of an accident, etc.)... then...
... how the heck can anybody exepct those who put the dive structure on the bottom to have any liability for anything that goes on in terms of using the structure over which they have no direct control regarding its use.
I'd note that:
1: ALL divers have been instructed via a structured and formal training process that wrecks and wreck penetration is a dangerous activity, that they should never do so without the skills and training necessary, and... in the specific case of the SG accident, had specifically agreed... ON THE SAME FORM AS THE HOLD HARMLESS PROVISIONS... that they would not penetrate the wreck.
2: The placing authority, while it may have made some efforts to minimize entanglements, close off obvious and clear hazards and, by placeing some areas 'off limits' provided notification on clear hazards to avoid... make no claims or representations as to the safety of the structure or its use let alone any that might be contrary to what divers have been educated on before getting their C-cards.... were made.
Seems to me that unless somebody can prove that an intentionally submerged structure represents a grossly more hazardous environment than a submerged structure that occured through collison or any other 'natural' method of finding the bottom of the ocean there is no way to hold them accountable for any accident that occurs on the structure...
... after all... we're not really customers employing a dive-op to provide surface support, transportation services and logistics for our activity... we're 'divers'...
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,798
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
You're trying to be reasonable, which is not the same thing as either legal or logical.
Thalassamania:
Awwwww.... com'mon... ya' can't blame a guy for tryin' can ya'????
Boatlawyer
Contributor
J.R.:
Dang JR- All that larnin' I tried to put on ye and you still miss the point!
I have tried to read all the posts on this subject so if I missed something I appologize. I have been on the SG several times. I dive the Northeast on a regular basis 1000+...(in the ocean not DS).
I agree the boat and the shop are just a way to get you to a wreck. What happens underwater is the divers responsibility. The best plans in the word seem to change when you think you can reach the next room or get one more lobster.
Closing things off make things more attractive to divers. They have ways of breaking chains and not seeing warning signs.
I can't believe anyone even mentioned closing the wreck. First of all the amount of money the wreck generates and the wreck is 3 miles off-shore.
(when someone has an unsuccessful skyive should we close the air space above us)
It is sad when we have to loose divers that probably offered a lot not only to their familys but to the diving community.
My point is that the SG is at time one of the hardest wrecks you will ever face. Not only is it deep but the currents there will make suprise the hell out of you.
They also stick you down there on a alu80 that is filled half assed.
I think these dive shops need to realize that this is a technical dive and should have larger tanks 100's and 120's....and require bail out bottles. Not spare air but a 20 or 30 cf ponney bottle.
I agree the boat and the shop are just a way to get you to a wreck. What happens underwater is the divers responsibility. The best plans in the word seem to change when you think you can reach the next room or get one more lobster.
Closing things off make things more attractive to divers. They have ways of breaking chains and not seeing warning signs.
I can't believe anyone even mentioned closing the wreck. First of all the amount of money the wreck generates and the wreck is 3 miles off-shore.
(when someone has an unsuccessful skyive should we close the air space above us)
It is sad when we have to loose divers that probably offered a lot not only to their familys but to the diving community.
My point is that the SG is at time one of the hardest wrecks you will ever face. Not only is it deep but the currents there will make suprise the hell out of you.
They also stick you down there on a alu80 that is filled half assed.
I think these dive shops need to realize that this is a technical dive and should have larger tanks 100's and 120's....and require bail out bottles. Not spare air but a 20 or 30 cf ponney bottle.
ctnitroxdiver2006
Guest
AXL72:OK...why did the cops confiscate my bloody fireworks, then???? hmmmmm?
I wasn't gonna use emno way.
OK....who keeeps deleting my posts? Yesterday I was back up to 783. Grrrrrrrr.
I bet it was that ape orens.....grrrr:light:
well, I imagine there are many more uses for a dive reel than fireworks and I bet they wernt sparklers!:no
>>They also stick you down there on a alu80 that is filled half assed.
I think these dive shops need to realize that this is a technical dive and should have larger tanks 100's and 120's....and require bail out bottles. Not spare air but a 20 or 30 cf ponney bottle.<<
Who has misinformed you about this being a techy dive. Recreational diving is defined as a dive to a depth limit of 130 feet.
You have to remember that we are talking about recreational diving and not technical diving. The Speigel Grove is lying in 130 fsw which makes it a recreational dive. Diver's don't need to be going into deco to look at a silly hunk of metal.
I think these dive shops need to realize that this is a technical dive and should have larger tanks 100's and 120's....and require bail out bottles. Not spare air but a 20 or 30 cf ponney bottle.<<
Who has misinformed you about this being a techy dive. Recreational diving is defined as a dive to a depth limit of 130 feet.
You have to remember that we are talking about recreational diving and not technical diving. The Speigel Grove is lying in 130 fsw which makes it a recreational dive. Diver's don't need to be going into deco to look at a silly hunk of metal.
Boatlawyer:
Tee-hee... sorry Coach... sum of us is slow studies... :babycrawl
Similar threads
