Legality of "cave fills"

[rhwestfall]

If you get someone to cave fill your steel 95, and you have a completely unrelated accident while driving across the bridge to Solomons, and the damaged valve of the scuba cylinder in the back of your pickup shot off and killed the baby in the car behind you, I almost guarantee that your lawyer or opposing council would be sure to name the fill station, FSO, and person who put it in your truck to share in the bounty of the award, especially if there were a cool million in insurance to gather from the fill station.

In the aftermath, how would they know the cylinder was over-pressurized?

It would be found empty and in a damaged state...

That becomes hearsay, unless there is some form of documentation managed...

 

[Wookie]

In the aftermath, how would they know the cylinder was over-pressurized?

It would be found empty and in a damaged state...

That becomes hearsay, unless there is some form of documentation managed...

And if you're the guy being sued for improperly securing your cargo?

Who would you throw under the bus?

 

[crofrog]

If you get someone to cave fill your steel 95, and you have a completely unrelated accident while driving across the bridge to Solomons, and the damaged valve of the scuba cylinder in the back of your pickup shot off and killed the baby in the car behind you, I almost guarantee that your lawyer or opposing council would be sure to name the fill station, FSO, and person who put it in your truck to share in the bounty of the award, especially if there were a cool million in insurance to gather from the fill station.

I've been around lawyers. Winning at any cost is their motto.

Yes you mentioned criminal liability that’s a bit of a a grey area. Civil is different

 

[Wookie]

Yes you mentioned criminal liability that’s a bit of a a grey area. Civil is different

Indeed. I think it would be a long stretch to find someone criminally liable for breaking a regulation.

Peter Sotis may have a different opinion.

But as far as cave fills go, I completely agree.

 

[Sea_Jay]

All very interesting points. Thanks guys & gals.

 

[Wookie]

All very interesting points. Thanks guys & gals.

Oh. We aren't done.

I'm betting this can go 200 posts or more.

 

[Whitrzac]

Even if it was properly filled, the shop would be sued anyway. It's how lawyers work

 

[Wookie]

Even if it was properly filled, the shop would be sued anyway. It's how lawyers work

Yes. I could go back and change my post, but if it were improperly filled, it would be a slam dunk, but just being able to access the insurance policy makes it worth going after.

 

[broncobowsher]

No.

You'd be breaking the law when you moved the over-pressurized cylinder.

Even more fuzzy. Unless there are specific state laws, the federal DOT only covers interstate commerce. That is crossing state lines. And even then it only applies for commercial (business) purposes. Personal use doesn't apply.

Having worked with my state DOT, discussed how laws are written and what we should/shouldn't be doing. Not SCUBA, just work vehicles. Even they couldn't clearly answer questions about there own laws on the books and how they are enforced. Comes to the DOT, man on the scene, and what they think, and that is backed with what the judge might say if things go that far.

If you are looking for clear instruction of what is and isn't legal, there isn't one.

Here is a fun one that snowflakes hate. Everything is legal, unless there is a law that says it isn't. When you get someone saying "who said you can do that", the only correct answer is "where is the law that says I can't". Then you get into poorly defined umbrella laws that try to cover everything. Stuff worded like "any unsafe act". Now you have to prove that the act was unsafe. And lawyers who find ways of twisting what is written to match there side of events.

 

[-JD-]

Even more fuzzy. Unless there are specific state laws, the federal DOT only covers interstate commerce. That is crossing state lines. And even then it only applies for commercial (business) purposes. Personal use doesn't apply.

There is a neat work around to that whole pesky "interstate" word. The theory goes something like "well, yes, -this- was intra-state, but if the transaction wasn't done intrastate, it might have been done inter-state and therfore this intrastate transaction could have an effect on interstate commerce so therfore it is really subject to interstate commerce regulations."

Personally, I fid that outrageous, but SCOTUS didn't ask me ...