Liability with buddies

[H2Andy]

Once there is case law, doesn't that set a precedent?...new cases are then interpreted in that light?

in that particular jurisdiction, yes

it can be persuasive precedent in other jurisdictions, but not binding, until
that jurisdiction adopts the case

But no "duty" exists because a legal relationship was not established.

a buddy has a duty to act as a reasonable buddy under the circumstances.
if you breach that duty and your buddy is damaged as a result, you can
be liable.

again, this is extremely rare.

 

[minnesota01r6]

yeah, what Andy said

 

[cowboyneal]

I'd love to see the cites on those cases that establish "Buddy" liability. Not wanting to be argumentative, but I can't believe any court established some kind of "buddy liability" in a simple negligence case, unless there was some special relationship established between the 2 divers beforehand (instructor or DM and student/guided diver). What is a "reasonable" buddy? I mean there is no "buddy" manual, and no way to make an objective determination about what a "reasonable" buddy would do under any particular circumstance, in my opinion. Send me cites!!!! (Please - just for my intellectual interest).

I am going to draft my own waiver to have everyone on the boat sign:

You recognize and agree that I am a selfish pig, and if you do something stupid, and are about to die, I may or may not choose to try to help you (in my sole discretion) and you hereby release me from any and all liability related to said decision and/or action, or failure to act, whether or not you were my dive buddy, and also waive any and all claims for dive buddy liability based on any of the foregoing or anything related to the dive, and admit and acknowledge that you spit in your hand and swore up and down this was the truth to get into the water...hahaaaa

 

[H2Andy]

lol

good waiver

seriously, though, it may make sense to have a buddy waiver if you are worried
about protecting assets.

 

[JMcD]

Being in the insurance industry, (Not in the US however, and it is a very different market!) all I can add is that there is a reason for a liability policy and everyone should re-read their insurance policies to determine if they have the coverage they need or perceive they need. Speak with a qualified insurance professional/broker and get advice. With adequate insurance, a potentially financially devastating liability lawsuit can really become less than a small nuisance.

 

[Cacia]

You recognize and agree that I am a selfish pig, and if you do something stupid, and are about to die, I may or may not choose to try to help you (in my sole discretion) and you hereby release me from any and all liability related to said decision and/or action, or failure to act, whether or not you were my dive buddy, and also waive any and all claims for dive buddy liability based on any of the foregoing or anything related to the dive, and admit and acknowledge that you spit in your hand and swore up and down this was the truth to get into the water...hahaaaa
__________________

yes, basically. Would "solo" across the back of my wetsuit be compelling enough?

I am still buggin about our (Oahu) latest settlement where they determined that the ratio wasn't optimal even though the lady had a heart attack. One instructor, eight divers? Very routine around here. They were not even required to have an Instructor... I think what scares people is that it seems so unpredictable, the rulings. I guess there are no rulings in a settlement. I just don't get it...too complicated.

 

[K9trnr]

a buddy has a duty to act as a reasonable buddy under the circumstances.
if you breach that duty and your buddy is damaged as a result, you can
be liable.

again, this is extremely rare.

I agree. I also ran across an article at http://www.scubadiving.com/training/basic_skills/how_to_find_a_buddy. Read the second paragraph that talks about moral and legal liability.

Also try Coleman, P. Your Liability As A Buddy, Undercurrent, March, 2002, 9-13 and Hardy, J. Dive Buddy Liability, Scuba Diving, Sept. 2000, 24-25.

 

[cowboyneal]

I still want to see court cites; it's nice to 'imagine' this or that could happen (and people writing about what 'could be' is also interesting) and looking at the downside if it does happen (and is what we get paid for as lawyers - me I'm a business guy with a law degree, so I'm with Shakespeare on the litigators...j/k), but without a court precedent, I don't think its a highly likely possibility. On the flip side, and as we also well know, you can sue someone for anything, and I don't want to get sued by some DumbBuddy I picked up on a dive boat just because I was there on my own...maybe we really DO need a Buddy waiver. Could you imagine whipping that out on the dive boat? Hilarious!!! I'd be totally deadpan about it: "I'm serious as a heart attack" kind of thing....

CN

 

[H2Andy]

neil, i can't do the research at the moment, but this is the one i have in mind:

Rasmussen v. Bendotti, 29 P.3d 56 (Wash.App. Div. 3 ,2001) Scuba diver owed duty to his diving buddy to act in manner of reasonably prudent diver. The court held
that the diver breached duty he owed to his diving buddy to act in manner of reasonably prudent diver, where diver and diving buddy did not perform buddy check and self equipment check prior to dive.

 

[DivePartner1]

Here's a better citation that law students, at least, might appreciate:

"In a marvelous self-parody, the City Bar Association of New York, together with the Historical Society for New York state courts, reenacted the argument over the famous Palsgraf case—and ruled in Palsgraf's favor. Peter Lattman has details."

"The original 1928 Palsgraf case, of course, was an early version of the deep-pockets search: a passenger carrying dynamite was rushing for a train when a Long Island Railroad employee did a poor job of keeping him from falling, causing the package of fireworks to drop and explode, causing scales to fall on Ms. Palsgraf a ways away and injure her, for which she sought to blame the railroad, rather than the fellow who dropped his fireworks. (Not mentioned in the opinion, taught in every law school torts class: Palsgraf's chief complaint for damages was that the accident caused her to start "stuttering and stammering.") " http://www.pointoflaw.com/

US courts have been described as evolving tools in a search for money rather than than old ideal, the search for the truth. See, e.g., http://www.overlawyered.com/personal_responsibility/

Combine a motivated search for a "deep pocket" dive buddy with declining judicial standards on forseeabilty and "duty" and it is not hard to predict that some court, somewhere will, in time, expand a tort of 'dive buddy liability.'