Liability issues ?

[LenC]

I think he is letting his fear of being sued getting in the way of his core business. You are not a professional diver so what you are doing is purely social. You do work for the shop. Is there some possibility that the shop might get sued? Sure. But that possibility is remote at best and the good will of your being social with the customers would far outweigh it. I suspect your boss is getting advice from an attorney who is overstating the danger without regard to the business side.

 

[Damselfish]

Is there another dive shop in the area? Perhaps your friends can stop patronizing the shop you work at. They won't be customers anymore - problem solved.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I've never heard of a dive shop that doesn't want its employees diving with customers ... most dive shops arrange shop dives in order to keep customers interested in diving ... it's good for business.

As Thalassamania pointed out ... unless you're a dive "pro" (DM or Instructor), I don't see a liability issue, particularly if you're not doing it on shop time.

Sounds very strange ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[knowone]

How long has the current owner been associated with the shop?

Are you involved personally with shop staff, or family members?

 

[ItsBruce]

I am a lawyer. What I can tell you is that there is a lot of bad information and bad advice being given here. Not all of it is bad, but lots of it is bad.

I'm not going to give you advice, if for no other reason than that I'm not licensed to practice in Alaska and in any event I don't know how Alaska law might differ from California law.

What I can tell you is that based on my knowledge of general principles and of how lawsuits generally work, I can see why the shop owner might be concerned about you diving with customers. (Re-read Jax' post.) I don't know if the owner's concerns are warrant prohibiting you from diving with customers. But, I can sure see why it might worry the owner. And, it is more likely than not that the owner's requirement is within what the law allows. OTOH, if something goes wrong on a dive, the shop could end up getting sued even if the victim is not a customer of the shop.

The bottom line here, as in most instances, is that the question is not whether the shop is likely to be found liable, but rather the cost of defending a lawsuit.

 

[theduckguru]

I am a lawyer. What I can tell you is that there is a lot of bad information and bad advice being given here. Not all of it is bad, but lots of it is bad.

I'm not going to give you advice, if for no other reason than that I'm not licensed to practice in Alaska and in any event I don't know how Alaska law might differ from California law.

What I can tell you is that based on my knowledge of general principles and of how lawsuits generally work, I can see why the shop owner might be concerned about you diving with customers. (Re-read Jax' post.) I don't know if the owner's concerns are warrant prohibiting you from diving with customers. But, I can sure see why it might worry the owner. And, it is more likely than not that the owner's requirement is within what the law allows. OTOH, if something goes wrong on a dive, the shop could end up getting sued even if the victim is not a customer of the

The bottom line here, as in most instances, is that the question is not whether the shop is likely to be found liable, but rather the cost of defending a lawsuit.

If you really want to avoid a scuba related law suit, you should stay out of the scuba business.

 

[Downing]

The bottom line here, as in most instances, is that the question is not whether the shop is likely to be found liable, but rather the cost of defending a lawsuit.

I'm also a lawyer (yes, we're like rabbits). The above is spot on.

Although I'm also not familiar with AK law, the shop owner's legal liability under the scenario you posed--diving with friends, off the clock, not work sponsored or related--is probably nil, but you don't have to change many facts for that not to be the case. It would appear he's just trying to avoid the potential headache and expense of getting sued. Have you asked him why the sudden change in the rules? A little communication can go a long way towards understanding if not agreement.

But in any case, the owner's the boss and gets to set the conditions of employment in his own shop, within constitutional limits of course. If you don't like it, then quit and go elsewhere.

Bummer!

 

[Garrobo]

Get another job with a different operator.

 

[2 Big 2 Fail]

Divers suing divers is not very common. Anything can happen and does or will at some time. If someone had a burning desire to sue over a diving incident where you could in any way be even imagined to be responsible, it's possible they might reflect on your very limited assets and try to attack the shop and its greater resources through you. It's pretty unlikely, because you're not engaged in that kind of work for the shop, but it's as possible as any other real unlikely thing. So, in a peculiar way, I would say you're marginally more at risk of being sued than someone who isn't connected to a shop. But I wouldn't worry about it any more than you would if you didn't work for the shop. And of course your employer can require pretty much anything he wants, including the requirement that you not dive with customers. He gets to do that.

But I think he's misguided. For one thing, does he not carry a reasonably large liability insurance policy for the shop? And does he imagine that only people who have actually done business with him before could sue him through you? The whole thing's silly, but if he's that worried, he wouldn't let you dive with anyone. Which would, of course, have the effect of making it impossible for him hire staff, unless he wants to try to staff a dive shop with non-diving people or strictly with solo divers!!!! Even as the rule is now, if he has any sort of local customer share, he would have a hard time replacing you. Nevertheless, for whatever goofy reason, he's imposed that restriction. Makes me wonder if he's not in trouble and has dropped his insurance. Or maybe he read something that scared him or misinterpreted something his insurer said.

If you're actually worried now about your own personal liability, ask the provider of your homeowner's or renter's insurance about an umbrella liability policy that, just as it implies, takes care of pretty much anything. It would be the sort of thing a skier would consider if they were worried about running into and hurting someone or a deer hunter, if they thought they might mistake Billy Bob for Bambi.

And liability releases do not keep people from suing you.

 

[akscubaduck1]

Is there another dive shop in the area? Perhaps your friends can stop patronizing the shop you work at. They won't be customers anymore - problem solved.

That's already happening.

How long has the current owner been associated with the shop?

Are you involved personally with shop staff, or family members?

More then 30 years, And no.

I'm also a lawyer (yes, we're like rabbits). The above is spot on.

Although I'm also not familiar with AK law, the shop owner's legal liability under the scenario you posed--diving with friends, off the clock, not work sponsored or related--is probably nil, but you don't have to change many facts for that not to be the case. It would appear he's just trying to avoid the potential headache and expense of getting sued. Have you asked him why the sudden change in the rules? A little communication can go a long way towards understanding if not agreement.

But in any case, the owner's the boss and gets to set the conditions of employment in his own shop, within constitutional limits of course. If you don't like it, then quit and go elsewhere.

Bummer!

Working on it, May have to get out of the Dive Industry all together!