Negligent Instructor?

[PRL]

In the USA negligence is measured against a reasonable and prudent pearson; a pearson that follows ALL standards and allways does the right thing.

I'm curious if SDI standard for instance, is defigned well enough to be used in definition of a reasonable and prudent pearson. Or would a reasonable and prudent pearson follow standards of agencies against Solo diving.

I guess what I am asking is: Does an instructor have a defense against a suit if that instructor followed All SDI solo standards.
Anyone familiar with Diving Law?

 

[rjchandler]

A suit by whom for what? It all depends.

 

[mstudley]

If you're saying does a solo diving instructor from SDI have protection if one of their students drowns -after- being certified as a solo diver then I believe the answer is yes.

You -must- have to sign all sorts of waivers before enrolling in that class alleviating the instructor and certifying agency of all responsibility of death or injury resulting from actions taken by the trainee.

Teaching someone how to do something and them screwing it up themselves after demonstrating to the instructor that they can complete all required skills is not negligence.

It is defined as the following when using it in a legal sense: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

It's like medical malpractice.

 

[PRL]

To my understanding a waiver is a solid defence only in a handfull of states. In other states a release of liability is not all that important, and an instructor still can be sued even if he has all the paperwork.

OK, Lets say.
A 21 year old completes the course and all standards are followed. Two weeks later he gets entengeled and drowns. His mother who did not know about the solo cert her son was holding, is a certified diver, and is against solo diving, files a suit against the instructor and SDI for teaching a course that is not sanctioned by the diving community in general and it clearly violates standards of majority of certifying agencies.

So my question is, are actions of the solo instructor going to be compared to standards of a reasonable and prudent SDI Solo instructor or standards of a reasonable and prudent Scuba instructor based on the majority of standards (that are against solo diving.)
In other words:

Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

apply to the solo course, and the instructor is judged solely by SDI solo diving standards. Or does the statement apply to the majority standard, and the instructor is judged by standards that are against solo diving.

I believe that this is a valid question on this forum. IMO law should be one of the core considerations in teaching courses. And if there is a reason for concern than it would be a good starting point for esteblishing standards for solo diving and protecting the instructor.

BTW: I am not seeking legal advice but trying to get a better understanding of the diving law in the US. It still would be nice to know if the responces are from people like me, with little or no legal experience or from proffesionals with civil law experience.

 

[Xanthro]

In your example, the content of the course would be of paramount importance. To win the P would have to show that the course contributed to the cause of death or injury.

The P would have to prove that the course was negligent, and the the instuctor knew or should have known it was negligent.

Suppose the course stated, "Solo diving is inherently dangerous, the odds of death and injury in solo diving are far greater than in buddy diving, this course is not to promote solo diving, but to recognise that some people will chose to participate in this highly dangerous excerise, and we feel it important to attempt to lessen the risks involved, but the risk will always be significantly higher than in buddy diving."

And the course was taught around how risky solo diving is. The P would have a hard time prevailing.

If the course taught that solo diving with proper care and training could be as safe as proper buddy diving, then P would have a stronger case.

Here's a list of aquatic related lawsuits.
http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/460n4.htm
Xanthro

 

[novadiver]

In the USA negligence is measured against a reasonable and prudent pearson; a pearson that follows ALL standards and allways does the right thing.

I'm curious if SDI standard for instance, is defigned well enough to be used in definition of a reasonable and prudent pearson. Or would a reasonable and prudent pearson follow standards of agencies against Solo diving.

I guess what I am asking is: Does an instructor have a defense against a suit if that instructor followed All SDI solo standards.
Anyone familiar with Diving Law?

How many DRIVING instructors get sued when people die in car crashes,?

How many times has NASCAR been sued for street raceing?

lets be reasonable, If you solo dive you take responsibility for your actions!!!

DIVE SAFE

 

[PRL]

Xanthro, you have convinced me. But I would like to throw in a little more.
Lets say, The accident happened at a local quarry where solo diving is only allowed with a solo cert. and solo divers without the cert are not allowed into the quarry. The diver checked into the office showed his cert to the owner (who btw also is sued) , signed a liability release and an assumption of risk.
It is clear that the posession of the cert allowed the diver to dive without a buddy.
It is also clear that a buddy could be of great help in avoiding the accident and that is one of the majority standards that would have to be omitted in solo training.
As for the disclaimer "Solo diving is inherently dangerous........" Is that enough to protect the instructor since the cert is used to gain entry. So I can argue that posessing the cert allowed the diver to get into a hazardous situation where if the instructor didnt issue a cert the diver would have to dive with a buddy.

Also are dive centers, by requiring a solo cert to solo dive, opening them selves to liability?

What would be the most effective method to protect one self and still teach some valuable skills to divers. Should a certification card be issued upon completion of the course? (I am not against solo diving, just wondering if a cert card is necessary for divers to dive solo)

 

[PRL]

How many DRIVING instructors get sued when people die in car crashes,?

How many times has NASCAR been sued for street raceing?

lets be reasonable, If you solo dive you take responsibility for your actions!!!

DIVE SAFE

nova, I believe that civil suits are more common in scuba than most of us realize.
How many dive instructors get sued when people drown?

 

[novadiver]

nova, I believe that civil suits are more common in scuba than most of us realize.
How many dive instructors get sued when people drown?

Not sure of the stats on that one, But on the other hand, how many dive buddies get sued when there is a dive fatality and one buddy makes it? By being a dive buddy you assume responsibility for the other diver, even if this was your first dive together.

A lawyer can sue a ham sandwitch, doesn't mean he gets paid.

 

[PRL]

Not sure of the stats on that one, But on the other hand, how many dive buddies get sued when there is a dive fatality and one buddy makes it? By being a dive buddy you assume responsibility for the other diver, even if this was your first dive together.

A lawyer can sue a ham sandwitch, doesn't mean he gets paid.

There is a difference between a dive buddy and an instructor. With an instructor there is a "Standard of Care"

Dive buddy can claim stupidity, an instructor should know better