Liveaboard fatality - Caymans

[boulderjohn]

The diver had a rapid ascent prior to drowning. In diving accidents, that is often the case.

Oxygen toxicity itself does not kill divers; it creates a situation where something else will likely kill them. A couple years ago in South Florida, a diver mistakenly believed he had air in a set of doubles that had been sitting around full for a number of months, and he went on a dive where he was likely at about 160 feet for 20 minutes or so. (I talked with his buddy.) He actually had 36% in those tanks. When he realized he was having a problem, he made a rapid ascent, and it was the embolism he got during that ascent that killed him.

Similarly, my nephew's mother-in-law died during a dive. The autopsy showed she had suffered a heart attack during the dive and had even had one the day before. That is not what killed her, though. When she felt something was wrong, she had thrown away her regulator and made a rapid, breath holding ascent to the surface, and it was the embolism that caused the death.

In both cases, the official cause of death was drowning.

 

[kelemvor]

Check your math.

314/33 +1 = 10.5 ATA
10.5 * .32 = 3.36

That's a pretty high PO2.

Not sure how I blew that one, must have been a typo as those were the numbers I remember using. Thanks for the correction.

 

[KevinNM]

Oxygen toxicity itself does not kill divers; it creates a situation where something else will likely kill them. A couple years ago in South Florida, a diver mistakenly believed he had air in a set of doubles that had been sitting around full for a number of months, and he went on a dive where he was likely at about 160 feet for 20 minutes or so. (I talked with his buddy.) He actually had 36% in those tanks. When he realized he was having a problem, he made a rapid ascent, and it was the embolism he got during that ascent that killed him.

Well, yeah, but it's the root cause.

Max: You killed him?
Vincent: No, I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him.

 

[boulderjohn]

Well, yeah, but it's the root cause.

Max: You killed him?
Vincent: No, I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him.

Of course. That's actually my intended point. I was explaining the importance of the rapid ascent in his profile and the conclusion that he died of drowning.

 

[chillyinCanada]

Phil, do you mean the insurance won't pay for misadventure?

 

[Phil_C]

Phil, do you mean the insurance won't pay for misadventure?

I'm a little out of touch with current thinking on insurance, but it is highly possible that they would not, or would seriously offset/reduce the payout. Basically misadventure means that something you did, that was ill advised or against common accepted good/safe practise, caused the death, so it was your actions and your fault that caused the death.

The mis-adventure can also involve another party, a so called joint venture, but must involve the agreement and willing actions of the deceased (otherwise you are looking at manslaughter, what I think the US call involuntary manslaughter) , in this case there was only one person involved so it can only relate to the deceased.

Basically a mis adventure ruling is the coroner's court saying the deceased brought the outcome on himself, by his own actions, and it was his own fault. Would a US insurance company pay out for something a court ruled you caused yourself?

From what I hear I doubt it, but I am no expert on US law, especially insurance litigation.

P

 

[KevinNM]

From what I hear I doubt it, but I am no expert on US law, especially insurance litigation.

I think it all depends on the policy. Some will cover suicide.

 

[Phil_C]

I think it all depends on the policy. Some will cover suicide.

Yep, well mis-adventure isn't quite that strong, but it is getting on that way, the difference being the intention of the individual when they undertook the course of action that ended in their death. With mis adventure they didn't set out with the aim of killing themselves.

So if some will pay on suicide then yep, they would pay for mis adventure, but I suspect as many would try to wiggle and not pay. - P

 

[scagrotto]

Would a US insurance company pay out for something a court ruled you caused yourself?

Of course. A lot of policies even include an accidental death benefit that doubles the amount of coverage. I don't have any actuarial data, but I think it's a very safe bet that well over 50% of accidental deaths are the fault of the deceased.

The only out the insurance company has will be based on specific exclusions, many of which only apply to the accidental death benefit (meaning you still collect the face value of the policy). It's been a long time since I read my policy, but my recollection is that the only thing that would prevent payment of the face value was suicide during the first year of the policy. The accidental death benefit doesn't apply to motor vehicle racing or flying on anything other than a regularly scheduled passenger flight (or something along those lines; IIRC, it's silent on death by skydiving after having exited a non-scheduled flight), or to diving beyond recreational depths (it might say "limits" which would then exclude any technical diving). It also excludes the ADB payment for any death in the commission of a crime, or while drunk or using illegal drugs. There's nothing that gives them a get out of jail free card just because I was doing something unusually dangerous.

I've got no idea about the finer legal points of "death by misadventure", but it seems like a somewhat subjective ruling. How stupid does your mistake need to be to qualify? Coming back to this specific case, why did he go to 314'? If he didn't intend to go that deep then perhaps this shouldn't be categorized as death by misadventure. Maybe he got narced at 105', emptied his BC, and sank to 314' before becoming buoyant. That would mean he died as a result of not solving a relatively minor problem rather than because he did something really stupid. It would also mean that his accident occurred within recreational depths, and if he had a policy with ADB the additional coverage should be paid.

I'll also note that my recollection is that an autopsy won't indicate that a diver experienced oxtox. If that's correct then the coroner is just making an assumption. The assumption would fit the known facts, but it's still an assumption

 

[kelemvor]

The diver had a rapid ascent prior to drowning. In diving accidents, that is often the case.

Oxygen toxicity itself does not kill divers; it creates a situation where something else will likely kill them. A couple years ago in South Florida, a diver mistakenly believed he had air in a set of doubles that had been sitting around full for a number of months, and he went on a dive where he was likely at about 160 feet for 20 minutes or so. (I talked with his buddy.) He actually had 36% in those tanks. When he realized he was having a problem, he made a rapid ascent, and it was the embolism he got during that ascent that killed him.

Isn't that really panic from fear of possible oxygen toxicity? Possibly exacerbated by narcosis at that depth? I thought OxTox generally resulted in unconsciousness/seizure and drowning in the absence of FFM, but perhaps my memory on the subject isn't completely accurate.

I went and read some on the subject and found this interesting paper. http://archive.rubicon-foundation.o...6789/3863/1970JMClarkPhDThesis.pdf?sequence=1

Apparently it's possible to tox at 0.3ppO2. So 32% nitrox at the surface, in the right conditions could possibly cause oxtox - according to this paper.