Merged: Liability Releases - shop sued diver's death, Catalina Island 2005
- Thread starter ItsBruce
- Start date
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
So ambulance chasing lawyers are a myth? Those ads on TV for class action suits against (fill in the blank - tobacco, drug companies, asbestos, etc.) for clients harmed by KNOWN RISKS (if you are too stupid to read the fine print, call our lawyers at 1-800-SUE-GUYS [cases likely to be referred]) - I guess no one is influenced in their decision to sue. Purely family members who "went looking for and interviewing for a lawyer who would take the case." Right - got it now. Thanks for clarifying.
So ambulance chasing lawyers are a myth? Those ads on TV for class action suits against (fill in the blank - tobacco, drug companies, asbestos, etc.) for clients harmed by KNOWN RISKS (if you are too stupid to read the fine print, call our lawyers at 1-800-SUE-GUYS [cases likely to be referred]) - I guess no one is influenced in their decision to sue. Purely family members who "went looking for and interviewing for a lawyer who would take the case." Right - got it now. Thanks for clarifying.
I thought I left it open enough to recognize that there are ambulance chasers out there working for the firm of Sue Grab and Run but I think it is wrong to paint all lawyers with the same brush!
There are some great lawyers out there trying to do the right thing by people. I am hoping some of them are representing SB and 101 Does at this moment!:blinking:Blastman4444
Contributor
I have seen my share of lawsuits and I even have been on the jury 2 times in liability suits. The above statement is very true the shop could incur some liability because of the faulty gauge. This is why the upper courts reversed the motion for dismiss I'm assuming on the grounds of the waiver. Once you show any kind of negligence waivers go out the window especially on motions for dismiss where the court is deciding if the case can go to trial. I would bet the plaintiff will settle with the shops insurance company. The shop is probably letting the liability insurance company call the shots since it's them that will pay.
drbill like many I have the deepest respect for you so when you say you agree with me I am honoured:worship:
if that was written by a chief legal person they either need their fingers slapped or perhaps didn't anticipate the waiver being used for anything but Boat dives
The wording on the release says "multi-day OR boat" diving. Multi-day refers to the fact that rentals are for 24 hours, not a single day. Personally I find the decision to continue the suit because it does not say "single day" diving to be pretty lame. Hopefully the next justice will too.
Blastman4444
Contributor
This is one reason once a year I take all my wavers, insurance policy's, and anything else and my attorney and I review if anything needs changing. When you end up in court every word is put under a microscope. Another fact is you better read your own paper work don't just leave it up to an attorney to handle. What are they going to do now that shop the attorney that handled the case he can't be sued for not writing a correct waver.
OP
ItsBruce
Contributor
Two points:
1. Having things like waivers reviewed by an attorney is a good idea. But, a client must let the attorney know his or her goals. Do you really want the client to sign a waiver that waives EVERYTHING, or just certain things? You need to tell the lawyer those kinds of things.
2. I'm sorry, but I completely agree with the court's ruling that the waiver does not constitute an absolute, automatic defense because it refers to multi-day rentals or boat dives. Even if the gear is rented for 24 hours and runs across two days, that does not make it a multi-day rental. The 25th hour may make it multi-day. I don't think that I would have thought that renting equipment for a day of diving, even if I had to return it within 24 hours, would be a multi-day dive.
Now, be honest: Who here would have thought they were doing a multi-day rental when they went to Catalina, rented gear from a local shop to use for the day, with the expectation of returning it the next morning? How about with the expectation of returning it at the end of the day?
I must also say that I'm not sure I would have actually read the waiver language once I saw the heading which referred to "multi-day or boat" dives. I expect that I would have gotten to the heading, thought: "That does not apply to me," and skipped to the next heading.
Now, be honest: Who here would have done that?
1. Having things like waivers reviewed by an attorney is a good idea. But, a client must let the attorney know his or her goals. Do you really want the client to sign a waiver that waives EVERYTHING, or just certain things? You need to tell the lawyer those kinds of things.
2. I'm sorry, but I completely agree with the court's ruling that the waiver does not constitute an absolute, automatic defense because it refers to multi-day rentals or boat dives. Even if the gear is rented for 24 hours and runs across two days, that does not make it a multi-day rental. The 25th hour may make it multi-day. I don't think that I would have thought that renting equipment for a day of diving, even if I had to return it within 24 hours, would be a multi-day dive.
Now, be honest: Who here would have thought they were doing a multi-day rental when they went to Catalina, rented gear from a local shop to use for the day, with the expectation of returning it the next morning? How about with the expectation of returning it at the end of the day?
I must also say that I'm not sure I would have actually read the waiver language once I saw the heading which referred to "multi-day or boat" dives. I expect that I would have gotten to the heading, thought: "That does not apply to me," and skipped to the next heading.
Now, be honest: Who here would have done that?
I have a couple of questions that because of my lack of experience I don't know the answer.
I am wondering when a gauge malfunctions does it happen all at once or is it gradual. Is it possible the gauge was accurate when starting the dive and during the dive malfunctioned? I mean most everything breaks when you are using it, not when it is sitting on a shelf.
As far as the "short fill". Is it possible there was a leak from possibly the o ring in the yoke that happened causing the OOA at 80 fsw? Being overweighted, did he use more air filling and dumping his BC than he would have if correctly weighted, thereby making someone think he had a short fill?
Just curious.
I am wondering when a gauge malfunctions does it happen all at once or is it gradual. Is it possible the gauge was accurate when starting the dive and during the dive malfunctioned? I mean most everything breaks when you are using it, not when it is sitting on a shelf.
As far as the "short fill". Is it possible there was a leak from possibly the o ring in the yoke that happened causing the OOA at 80 fsw? Being overweighted, did he use more air filling and dumping his BC than he would have if correctly weighted, thereby making someone think he had a short fill?
Just curious.
Similar threads
