Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[Thalassamania]

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

That's exactly what "claim" means, no quibble and it's likely to be tested.

 

[dave4868]

That's exactly what "claim" means, no quibble and it's likely to be tested.

Unfortunately, if it gets tested, we're further on our way toward a "nanny state", aren't we?

Loosely defined, that would be where one is held responsible for the independent actions of others, thereby making it prudent to limit those independent actions and "take care" of others "for their own good".

Erosion of freedom is insidious, but one can hear it, if one listens carefully...

Sounds like this:

"they allowed them to...."

"there ought to be a law...."

"if we can save just one life...."

"they claimed they were only a taxi to the dive site...."

"they should have stopped them from doing that dive...."

"the wreck should be closed to diving...."

There's a simple alternative: expect individuals to be responsible for themselves, rather than entitled to protection from themselves.

Dave C

 

[shurite7]

Dave C,

There's a simple alternative: expect individuals to be responsible for themselves, rather than entitled to protection from themselves

I like this quote. To bad people today don't understand this.


ScubaPhotoBabe,

Thanks for the input.

Salaam alaikum

Chris

 

[J.R.]

Dave4868 wrote, "There's a simple alternative: expect individuals to be responsible for themselves, rather than entitled to protection from themselves."

Couldn't agree more...

Some thoughts on diving:

One of the things I see is a 'rush to entertainment'... classes are done faster, there is a higher dependance on the support structures of dive shops, dive organizers, on-line sources, etc. All of this is, inherently, a "short cut" to diving... we substitute taking the time to explore, map and learn the inherent hazards in a measured and controlled way (not to mention short cutting the time and expense) by *trusting* to others to do all this for us so that we can simply jump in the deep end and risk life and limb "safely"...

... ain't nothin' *safe* about diving. Murphy's Laws are in full force... the unexpected happens... the more short cuts "we" take... the greater the potential impact of what we do.

When I first started diving in the 70's one thing I vividly remember my instructor saying was, "Diving is a dangerous activity. When you are diving you are in a hostil environment and mistakes can kill you." Now days we don't want to scare the customer off... so we're presented with the illusion of safty with dual regulators, computers and lots of gizmos... (which, by the way... I think ARE wonderful inventions... just not any more or less *safe* than the way we dove back when...).

My guess on what is the greatest contributor to diving accidents... simply the fact that we're all in way too big of a hurry to go from zero to landspeed record. Haste and shortcuts are what create the bulk of the accidents... blind faith in technology... willingness to psychologically lay off our own responsibiilities on others... denial of our own limitations... *want* outweighing the limits of reality.

Accidents can and do happen... even to the most skilled. But all need to realize that having an OW card... or an AOW card... or any other "certification" doesn't mean you're a diver... it means you've been through a class and completed it successfully...

I feel sorry for the guys who didn't make it on the SG dive... but to lay off ANY of the responsibility for that accident on ANY other party is, in my honest opinion, way wrong. Each of us is, theoretically, a responsible adult and capable of making informed and intelligent decisions... and we will, in the final analysis, live or die by those decisions.

As the old line goes... "We have met the enemy... and he is us."

If we REALLY want to find a way to reduce accidents, save lives, etc... the trick is going to be to take a good hard look at ourselves and not to let our eyes wander afield to what OTHERS should have done to anticipate our own lack of ability...

My two pence...

 

[cowdog77]

"...and I said instructor, not the dive boat operator. It is not his responsibility to police them."
_____________________________
Anymore than it's a train engineer's job to keep folks from jumping off the train. Individual's responsibility.

 

[Boatlawyer]

Diving,ALL Diving is inherenitly dangerous and experience comes just after you need it.
These divers were just like us. We all try to to do deeper, longer and more exciting dives each and every time we dive and for all you lawers out there .....well all I can say is go find a 7mi per hour rear bumper hit to collect on .

Dang, have been looking for that car crash all morning, but haven't found it yet, so I guess I'll just respond to this thread...

I am firmly among the ranks of those who believe every person has a God-given right to kill themselves in the name of "adventure." The dive profile of the Spiegel Grove speaks for itself. I called my one and only, so far, attempt to dive it because I was seasick, and the current and surface chop that day was too much of a challenge for my own personal limits.

My gripe with the those pushing the envelope in the name of adventure is the risk they place others in to recover their remains when things go wrong. This past winter has been filled with news reports of stranded, and dead mountain climbers who have to be recovered. This dive accident is another example.

It is all well and good to say that people should have the right to take these risks. But should that right end at putting others in harms way to come and look for you or recover your remains? Should waivers should include "do not rescue or recover my remains" language? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[pir8]

Under other circumstances I would say to leave the bodies, but in a frequently dived wreck like the SG you can't leave them there.

 

[Boatlawyer]

Under other circumstances I would say to leave the bodies, but in a frequently dived wreck like the SG you can't leave them there.

Not to be contentious, but why not leave them there? The accounts say that the bodies are in a remote corner of the ship, and therefore unlikely to be encountered by other divers.

In this case, obviously, the divers did not provide for an optional burial at sea, and therefore there is really no choice. But, if waivers addressed this issue in the future, then wouldn't it be acceptable to simply leave divers if that is the risk they agreed to take and wait for their remains to eventually, if ever, surface?

It is a tough ethical question, but an important one for the fiercely independent among us to address.

 

[Missdirected]

Not to be contentious, but why not leave them there? The accounts say that the bodies are in a remote corner of the ship, and therefore unlikely to be encountered by other divers.

In this case, obviously, the divers did not provide for an optional burial at sea, and therefore there is really no choice. But, if waivers addressed this issue in the future, then wouldn't it be acceptable to simply leave divers if that is the risk they agreed to take and wait for their remains to eventually, if ever, surface?

It is a tough ethical question, but an important one for the fiercely independent among us to address.

And if those bodies move? Do they not become litter in essence? A burial at sea may sound romantic to some but I for one have no desire to be pushing through bodies on my dive.

I do wonder though who or just how that is decided. Local gov't? Anyone know?

 

[Doc Intrepid]

The bodies would serve as a lure to draw the morbid that deep into the ship to see them. Photographs would be posted on the internet. YouTube clips. It would be ugly. It might inspire laws to be passed ...like the internet photos of 'trophies' from the USS Murphy inspired laws to be passed regarding all military wrecks as 'war graves'.

Its simply unnecessary. The bodies will be removed by a competent team and the post-traumatic circus will commence...