Merged: Liability Releases - shop sued diver's death, Catalina Island 2005

[vladimir]

Sure Bruce, nice try, but it's not going to work. This legal trickery, this sly tactic of marshaling facts to reach a logical conclusion--typical shysterism. We are angry, and lawyers are a convenient scapegoat, okay? They are the reason for the high cost of living, high cost of health care, high cost of insurance, high taxes, and the federal deficit, okay? Don't try to talk us out of it.

 

[drbill]

Why, is this diver was so experienced, did they allow themselves to run so low on air? I can't figure that out. If an SPG is not reading correctly, it is often out of whack throughout the range in my experience anyway. If the SPG were 500 psi off, the diver should have been heading up already to do a safety stop instead of being at a depth of 60 ft. Of course this is simply my opinion.

As for the release, it did surprise me to find out that the waiver title (Equipment rental agreement, liability release and assumption of risk of scuba & snorkel gear for boat dives or multiple day rentals) over rode the section that states "By signing this agreement, I exempt and release Catalina Scuba Luv and all related entities as defined above, from all liability or responsibility whatsoever for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death as a result of renting and/or using the equipment, however caused resulting but not limited to product liability or the negligence of the released parties." But of course I'm not a legal expert.

 

[drbill]

This is the shop I mostly dive out of so I am quite familiar with their practices and indeed worked briefly for the shop. In my years of experience with them I have never had a "short fill." I have never had a tank filled with bad air (and believe me, I've had well over 1,000 tanks filled by them).

Tanks are filled until the compressor stops (currently 3500 psi) or the fill rating reached. Tanks are checked for proper fills before they are given to the renter.

I now understand the principal of interpreting the liability statement that most favors the "injured party." I have read and signed this shop's liability releases for well over a decade and have always gone by the final statement mentioned above... but I'm not a legal expert.

I see this as a sad statement on the willingness of people to accept responsibility. The actual decision will be made by the jury when the trial is replayed, and I hope they find in favor of the defendants. I have seen too many people do too many foolish things with rental gear and blame the gear instead of their own stupidity. That is my opinion.

 

[openmindOW]

the pressure gauge ran high. The shop really should know what they are renting out. Had the gauge been correct he would have known his tank was not as full as he was shown by the gauge. Now the weighting is another issue in an experienced diver should know just about the area of how much he needs and does not need.

I think the gauge will be the one thing that wins the case for the family should they win.

An intelligent post. Thank you.

 

[openmindOW]

That is gods way of revoking a divers license.

A 17-year-old person died. Are you saying that it is a good thing that he died? Nice.

 

[openmindOW]

The Appeals Court ruling simply holds that the case can go forward. It is not a decision on the merits. The family still has to prove negligence. All the ruling means is that the family will get its day in court.

 

[DandyDon]

I don't know that the family deserves a day in court on such frivolous grounds. All I've seen was diver responsibility.

 

[k ellis]

I don't know that the family deserves a day in court on such frivolous grounds. All I've seen was diver responsibility.

the only thing that I see in this whole mess is like I said before is the question of the gauge. Having been the victim of a tragedy (not like this one of course) I can honestly say that many companies try desperately to surpress things for the sake of buisness (Disclaimer here is that I am saying in general not refering to this company).

With this being said every family member wants to know that yes it was in fact a heart attack or no it was not. Every family wants to know was it the gear or was it not. they want to know does the shop service their gear like they should or do they just say they do and let it go with that. Now again I am stating this in general terms.

with this being said by fileing (cant spell tonight) a law suit it pretty much well forces the companies and the families to come to the playing field with ALL the facts uncovered. On behalf of the company it will force the family to reveal if the diver had a heart condition prior to diving. It will reveal exactly how experienced he was and even question some of his former dive buddies possibly. On behalf of the family it will prove once and for all if the gear was or was not maintained. it will reveal if the shop knew the diver had a previous condition and just decided to make a buck instead or not know anything at all about the diver.

As a victim I can tell you lawsuits bring in experts who can analyze dive computers (If applicable) they can tell how maintained the gear was and they will question his instructors and possibly his previous buddies to see if he was or was not experienced.

Yes law suits are often frivilous but we have to understand its sometimes a desperate measure by the family to be 100% sure that what they are being told is true or not true and proven to the best of the plaintiffs team of experts and lawyers abilities. In the case of the shop it will be a chance to say to the world yes we do care and maintain our equipment and rent quality gear or no we do not. this all comes at a tremendous cost in both a finacial burden of the shop and possibly the family and also the over taxed judicial system its a no win situation in cost to get the absolute truth

 

[justintimetobelate]

Experienced or not I can't see as though the equipment had anything to do with it. Just me, other may see it differently. If it were in NY I would definitely take the case on the side of the dive shop, I can't see any instance in which they would lose here. The jury is selected by both sides, I have ability to say no to any juror.

 

[k ellis]

Experienced or not I can't see as though the equipment had anything to do with it. Just me, other may see it differently. If it were in NY I would definitely take the case on the side of the dive shop, I can't see any instance in which they would lose here. The jury is selected by both sides, I have ability to say no to any juror.

during the jury selection process it will most likely be asked of all jurors if they have any knowledge of diving or dive gear and equipment. Jurors are selected as impartial as possible. By not having any previous knowledge of diving they will be able to hear both sides and make a decision based upon the presentation of evidence provided from both sides.

They would most likely instantly request any one with knowledge of diving be dismissed as being one sided. Also to be asked of the jurors is if they know either party involved. Both the family the shop and anyone affiliated with either. Jurors though it may be difficult to find will be selected with out any knowledge of the incident, knowledge of how the shop works or direct relationship to shop owner/employees and or family or friends of the deceased.