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

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I didn't find this case during a search of 2005 incidents or I'd have appended it as an update. It should be an interesting lawsuit to follow.

Note the mention that "a recent study showed that older divers were at a high risk of suffering cardiac episodes as a result of the pressure during diving."


Appeals court reinstates family's lawsuit in scuba diver's death

By Denise Nix Staff Writer
Posted: 05/27/2010 06:50:43 PM PDT

The family of a scuba diver who ran out of air and died off Catalina Island can move forward with its wrongful death case against the company that rented him equipment, an appellate court has ruled.

In an opinion issued Wednesday, the 2nd District Court of Appeal reinstated the lawsuit against Catalina Scuba Luv, finding the waiver of liability Raffi Huverserian signed did not apply to him.

The appeal focuses specifically on the heading in a passage of the document that Huverserian signed before diving with his then 17-year-old son off Casino Point in Avalon on March 30, 2005.

The passage releasing renters from the right to sue Catalina Scuba Luv for injury or death is titled: "Equipment rental agreement, liability release and assumption of risk of scuba and snorkel gear for boat dives or multiple day rentals."

Huverserian's family maintains - and the appellate justices agreed - that the passage does not apply to Huverserian because he was not diving from a boat or renting equipment for multiple
days.

Catalina Scuba Luv, which had won a dismissal motion two years old, maintains that the release applies to all scuba gear renters.

Catalina Scuba Luv attorney David Rose said the appellate court took a "draconian interpretation" of the release's language.

"The Court of Appeal seemed to just hook on the title," Rose said.

Rose said that, nonetheless, his clients are not responsible for Huverserian's death due to a heart attack because they had nothing to do with the equipment.

He added that a recent study showed that older divers were at a high risk of suffering cardiac episodes as a result of the pressure during diving.

Catalina Scuba Luv can still appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Huverserian, of Northridge, ran out of air about 60 feet below the surface, He made a controlled ascent by breathing with his son on his air tank, according to the opinion.

However, on the beach, Huverserian went into cardiac arrest. He was resuscitated by medical personnel in Avalon and transferred to a hospital on the mainland, where he died the next day, the opinion states.

His wife and two children sued on April 2, 2007, in the San Pedro Annex of the Long Beach Superior Court. Judge Roy Paul granted Catalina Scuba Luv's motion for judgment on July 28, 2008, and Huverserian's family appealed.

The family's attorney, Steven R. Friedman, said that the precedent-setting case should get the attention of those who use such liability waivers for school, sports or other activities.

"Really, if you're gonna get this kind of release, it should be on a separate document, unambiguous and clear," Friedman said.

"When someone doesn't do that, they're trying to slip one by the public, and that's not allowed, for very good reason," he added.

Friedman said Huverserian, 45, was in good shape and an experienced diver.

He said the gauge that Catalina Scuba Luv gave him ran high, there wasn't enough air in the rental tank and he was given too much weight for the dive.

Huverserian's death has devastated his family, said Friedman, who is also a family friend.

"They are a husband and wife who met in high school and married," Friedman said. "She hasn't recovered."
Source: Appeals court reinstates family's lawsuit in scuba diver's death - The Daily Breeze
 
Why would an "experienced" diver use "too much weight" just because the store rented it to him.

I feel for the family but personal responsibility has to count for something.
 
In America personal responsibility counts for nothing; it no longer exists because of fraudulent people, such as the family who is heading the lawsuit.
 
Edit: posted a link but someone beat me to it. ;)
 
Why would an "experienced" diver use "too much weight" just because the store rented it to him.

I feel for the family but personal responsibility has to count for something.

If I read the article correctly, the premise of this case is that the shop was responsible for renting faulty equipment to this diver, specifically a rental gauge that indicated sufficient air remained and a rental tank that was in fact empty.

I found this case of particular interest in light of the several SB self reports of out of air accidents or near-misses involving destination rental equipment whereas gauges still indicated that anywhere from 200-400 psi, or more, remained. An exhaustive search turned up no other lawsuit claiming an operator was at fault for a diver's death re OOA, so this has the potential to set some case law, which fascinates me.

The Appeals Court cleared the way for a lawsuit by affirming that the waiver the diver signed didn't apply to the case because of its wording. The waiver specified that it (the shop) wasn't responsible for injuries resulting during multi-day rentals. Presumably if one has equipment overnight, he or she could cause damage to it (for which any sane business person would want to shun responsibility). However, this was not a multi-day rental, and the maker of a contract has the burden of writing a good one. Had the phrase "multi-day rentals" been omitted, there'd be no foundation for this civil suit.

Regarding the excess weight issued: I agree wholeheartedly that weights are a diver's sole responsibility. It didn't sound to me that an issue is being made about the weights as a contributing factor in the death. Rather, it seems like a "kitchen sink" strategy by the attorney, an attempt to present the shop as being careless or negligence in ways other than faulty equipment. The jurors may have no diving experience and an expert may not testify about personal responsibility, so who knows if this particular argument will be successful. But wouldn't most of us want our attorneys to make the defendants look as bad as possible?
 
Personally I don't see how the equipment caused the heart attack. He was sixty feet down, made it to the surface just fine. Then obviously he had to make it back to the beach.

So after the dive was over and he had gotten back to the beach is when he had his heart attack. This is correct, no?

I'm confused as to what exactly they are claiming was the culprit. Over exertion from the ascent and swim back to beach? If this is the case then perhaps he shouldn't have been diving.

The supposed defective equipment did not cause the heart attack but may have been contributing factor. The hypothesis is that due the faulty equipment he ran out of air which caused a stressful situation which contributed to the heart attack.

Here is a another example a car accident. Guy survives, gets out of their car looks at the damage and keels over. The accident did not cause the heart attack but the stress of the situation contributed to it.

The case will boil down to was in fact the cylinder fully filled and whether the gauge was defective. On the other side will be the heath and experience of the victim.
 


A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

All three threads on this have been merged into this single thread..
 

Back
Top Bottom