Gee Jim - sounds like you are still unhappy about getting tapped for jury duty!
Did you serve yet? (OK to post reply on the Whine and Cheese thread so as not to sidetrack this one)
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
Gee Jim - sounds like you are still unhappy about getting tapped for jury duty!
Did you serve yet? (OK to post reply on the Whine and Cheese thread so as not to sidetrack this one)
Not yet. June 7th.
justintimetobelate
Guest
Whomever wrote that waiver wasn't thinking when they did it. Not a complete surprise that the appeals judge ruled in this direction. Especially looking t the fact that it is in California. I'm not bad mouthing California, just judgments seem to be more liberal there.
You will see the dive shop assert that if their dive equipment is adequate for boat and multiple dives then it is adequate for shore and single dives.
Can they prove that the equipment caused the heart attack? Can they prove that the diver was within his ability level? That the diver was physically fit to be making this dive?
The burden of proof in this case is on the plaintiff, they need to prove all of that but may motion the court that the case is prima facie or possibly res ipsa loquitur based on the appeals ruling.
Basically what that means is either the evidence has already been given or that is so obvious it does not need to be given.
Unfortunately the knowledge of scuba by non divers is so low that a possible judgment for the plaintiff wouldn't be surprising. In a civil case the jury only needs to be 51% in your favor to judge on your behalf.
You will see the dive shop assert that if their dive equipment is adequate for boat and multiple dives then it is adequate for shore and single dives.
Can they prove that the equipment caused the heart attack? Can they prove that the diver was within his ability level? That the diver was physically fit to be making this dive?
The burden of proof in this case is on the plaintiff, they need to prove all of that but may motion the court that the case is prima facie or possibly res ipsa loquitur based on the appeals ruling.
Basically what that means is either the evidence has already been given or that is so obvious it does not need to be given.
Unfortunately the knowledge of scuba by non divers is so low that a possible judgment for the plaintiff wouldn't be surprising. In a civil case the jury only needs to be 51% in your favor to judge on your behalf.
hbhobby
Contributor
I agree that there needs to be some way for the guy being sued to recoup his cost. something like a loser pays all fees, because if the plaintiff wins the defendant pays the fees anyway, but when a defendant "wins" he still loses due to the lawyer costs! so there needs to be a way of recoping these costs without another lawsuit (causijng more cost) it looks like to me the only "winners" in any lawsuit is the lawyers!
- Messages
- 94,067
- Reaction score
- 92,904
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
Irrelevent ... many people who are in good shape have heart attacks. The guy made it to the surface OK ... so what caused the heart attack? Can they demonstrate it had anything to do with the incident? Or was it perhaps a pre-existing condition unrelated to scuba?
If he overexerted himself to the point of heart attack coming to the surface, that would indicate that he was either not in good shape or wasn't a very experienced diver.
Gauges commonly run high or low. Even if it's rental equipment, if the needle doesn't indicate 0 psi when the tank valve is turned off, the diver should notice that during setup or pre-dive checks. If it does indicate 0 when no pressure is applied, then the relative pressure reading is irrelevent, since it's the diver's responsibility to monitor their air supply and assure that they surface with a reasonable reserve.
One can only hope there are divers on the jury ... in which case, I don't see this family winning the suit.
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
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
This is ludicrous. If he would have been a new diver, someone at the LDS might have made recommendations for weight. But 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
This is ludicrous. If he would have been a new diver, someone at the LDS might have made recommendations for weight. But an experienced diver?
deepwater
Contributor
Lets all sue everybody who had anything to do with ACCIDENT. Sue the tank manufacturer, the spg manufacturer, and most of all lets sue GOD because if he didn't put the water there I wouldn't want to dive in it. Why do we all have our own gear?
justintimetobelate
Guest
Dive shop can recoup costs albeit in another lawsuit. The dive shop can sue for libel if they feel that business has been hurt by the lawsuit. In this suit they can ask for costs of the previous suit as well as costs for this suit and damages.
In theory if a judgment came back in favor of the plaintiffs and they felt that they could get another judgment they could sue the makers of the equipment. But I don't see how they could prove it was any one piece of equipment or if it was the equipments fault at all. Just my opinion, for whatever that's worth.
Just remember someone can never legally have their right to sue taken away, even if signing a liability waiver. A good liability waiver simply protects the entity in case of a lawsuit.
You have to love living in a country where you can sue for your own negligence.
In theory if a judgment came back in favor of the plaintiffs and they felt that they could get another judgment they could sue the makers of the equipment. But I don't see how they could prove it was any one piece of equipment or if it was the equipments fault at all. Just my opinion, for whatever that's worth.
Just remember someone can never legally have their right to sue taken away, even if signing a liability waiver. A good liability waiver simply protects the entity in case of a lawsuit.
You have to love living in a country where you can sue for your own negligence.
justintimetobelate
Guest
Oh I almost forgot....
Just stating that someone is in good health does not make it so. It is an opinion, not a fact.
I'm the strongest man alive. True or no? Obviously not, or maybe I am....
Even if the statement is made by a licensed physician does not necessarily make that person fit for diving. Does that physician have any experience with diving, be it recreational or commercial.
I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything of the like, I'm merely stating that this case shouldn't have come to this. Appeals did what they did because the original case was decided in error, however under no circumstance should the dive shop be held liable in this case. At least with the evidence that I have seen.
Just stating that someone is in good health does not make it so. It is an opinion, not a fact.
I'm the strongest man alive. True or no? Obviously not, or maybe I am....
Even if the statement is made by a licensed physician does not necessarily make that person fit for diving. Does that physician have any experience with diving, be it recreational or commercial.
I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything of the like, I'm merely stating that this case shouldn't have come to this. Appeals did what they did because the original case was decided in error, however under no circumstance should the dive shop be held liable in this case. At least with the evidence that I have seen.
Similar threads
