Legal responsibility to your dive buddy?

[wwkayaker22]

The previous post was for general U.S. common law

 

[Akimbo]

I disagree. Anyone who thinks you need an argument for solo diving has missed the whole point of solo diving.

There's only one reason to dive solo ... because you WANT to. Using something else ... like liability concerns or the ever-popular instabuddy argument ... to rationalize the decision suggests that maybe you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

OK, I should have added an icon: I will go back and add it to limit confusion.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Typically none. Unless you commit an intentional tort (like intentially pulling out their regulator). There could be a negligence issue (if you breached a duty to your dive budy) but it would almost have to be gross negligence, like driving the boat off without him/her.

The previous post was for general U.S. common law

In the US, negligence can only be claimed if the following are proven ...

- there existed a duty to act
- the duty was not fulfilled
- the circumstances that led to the breach of duty were foreseeable
- the breach of duty caused or exacerbated an injury

Until you involve yourself in a rescue, you have no duty to act. Once you begin to effect a rescue, you assume that duty. You fulfill the duty by acting within the limits of your training and ability, and by acting in a manner that can be construed as "reasonble and prudent". What that means to the diver is to not take actions that you are not trained for, and to not do something that is likely to injure yourself as well as the person you're trying to help.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

In the US, negligence can only be claimed if the following are proven ...

- there existed a duty to act
- the duty was not fulfilled
- the circumstances that led to the breach of duty were foreseeable
- the breach of duty caused or exacerbated an injury

Until you involve yourself in a rescue, you have no duty to act. Once you begin to effect a rescue, you assume that duty. You fulfill the duty by acting within the limits of your training and ability, and by acting in a manner that can be construed as "reasonble and prudent". What that means to the diver is to not take actions that you are not trained for, and to not do something that is likely to injure yourself as well as the person you're trying to help.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

This is the most concise answer about this yet.

 

[knowone]

In the US, negligence can only be claimed if the following are proven ...

- there existed a duty to act
- the duty was not fulfilled
- the circumstances that led to the breach of duty were foreseeable
- the breach of duty caused or exacerbated an injury

Until you involve yourself in a rescue, you have no duty to act. Once you begin to effect a rescue, you assume that duty. You fulfill the duty by acting within the limits of your training and ability, and by acting in a manner that can be construed as "reasonble and prudent". What that means to the diver is to not take actions that you are not trained for, and to not do something that is likely to injure yourself as well as the person you're trying to help.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

"Until you involve yourself" By opening the transom or lifting a victim?

"You have no duty to act" Legal not moral.

"Once you begin to effect a rescue" Take a step? Put a cushion under a head?

"You assume that duty" Are you in charge 100% assumption? Five people 20% each? What are we assuming? What is the extent of what we have taken up?

"You fulfill the duty by acting within the limits of your training and ability" Once you have acted have you fulfilled? Is training and ability combined or separate? If it's training half the old farts would't be diving. If it's ability half the new farts would't be diving or both be sued for diving. If you exceed either, do you expediently go to and stand in a corner or would that be a breach of duty where foreseeable exacerbation may occur?

Rescuing people is not even 100% safe in a class.

Common sense? No such thing. If there was, CPR would be learnt by all newborn parents and people would take active part rather than be concerned only for themselve because of fear of the paragraphs above. Perhaps those that avoid involvement do have common sense.

The law, writen and legislated by the morally bankrupt, to be applied to "the common people" to be utilised for gain by the other morally bankrupt bretheren. and require software for deciphering into 4 or 9 possible meanings not unlike some of the writings from poster's here?

Here is the result of our actions.

I won't even go into construed as reasonable and prudent.

Long live the queens.