Negligent Instructor?

[wolf eel]

[Are there any Pilots in the group who can tell us how law relates to them and their instructors.The high light of a pilots training is to "SOLO".I have a dive freind totally against SOLO diving but he flys his Piper Cub alone all the time.HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMM which has more potential for damage when we have the problems (?) we all hear about?]

I am going to take what you say for real.

I agree that was a point made about climbing. Solo diving should have the same legal standing as all other Solo events nobody to blame but yourself.

But if you do not trust your gear or what ever you should not dive alone and should not pass a solo course for that reason I would think. Unless the instructor did not reconize trouble in the fact the student was not ready. That would make him responsible for a accident potentaly. That would be the only way for resorts to stay clean of law suites. They should push the companies to produce a valid Solo diving course.

Which is a good idea as many people dive Solo without true training they are flying on one wing as to say. But to Solo all day long with out a solo "C" card would be just from a shore or whatever as long as you are not releaying on a company to assit you as in a boat, air, suit,with out a "C" card if they did you could draw them into your problem maybe. which would be a bad thing for somebody to do.
Cheers
Derek

 

[novadiver]

Hmmm. So the fact that a rec diver can look at a main stream gear regardles of the manufacturer and be able to put it together and dive it, expecting for the inflator hose to be on the left side, regs on the right, right hand weight release etc. That would not be a standard? The fact that you expect a DM regardles of certifying agency to have certain duties and responsibilities. That wouldnt be a standard as well? When you travel abroad for your dream scuba vacation, do you not expect certain accomodations and procedures?
The fact that main stream agencies cooperate to set minimum training STANDARDS and other diving procedures is not a standard eather?

I'm Lost.

Truth is that scuba industry has many standards to make diving what it is today. With out those standards diving would be much more dangerous, and alot less accesible to the general public.
Organizations such as DAN would not be able to function.
What is amaizing is that those standards are self regulated and main stream agencies do an "O.K." job (not great but ok) if they didn't than many governments, activists, and idiots would step in and try to run the industry for us with rediculous rules and STANDARDS. This still might happen because diving bussiness is gaining popularity and if a government can control it, than there is revenue to be made.
You might not agree with this post, but that wouldn't suprise me either

That's your opinion, and you know the old saying about personal opinions. now let it go ! Without any scuba industry there would still be a diver out there to explore the oceans, lakes,rivers, and seas. I hope that diver is ME, and I hope I'm all by myself.

 

[SoScuba]

I would apologize for going slightly off topic here but this thread has already headed in another direction. Reading Wolf Eels post above regarding solo diving from a boat has got me thinking. I have recently purchased a boat primarily for diving and I have the opportunity to take out some great divers. What you got me thinking about was allowing, or at the least having the knowledge that some of these divers are, for the most part, solo diving. They enter the water together but they have seperate plans for the dive. They are only buddied up untill they descend. Now, I am not responsible for their dive plans but I have taken them to the dive site and if something were to go wrong then have I contributed to the situation. Liability waivers have been signed but nothing mentioned re solo diving. Being a diver and knowing the risks involved and knowing the increased risks with solo diving, am I being negligent by allowing that/ those divers on my boat? I know there are no cut and dried answers to this but sometimes opinions are valuable.
Just on a side note here: I know I mentioned above that I am aware of the "increased" risks of solo diving. However I must add that I have been on dives earlier in my diving "career" where the buddy was the reason for the increased risk! In situations like that it is actually safer to be doing a solo dive. Thats exactly how my first ever solo dive became such a dive. It is not a style that I practise presently though.

 

[wolf eel]

[Liability waivers have been signed but nothing mentioned re solo diving.]

Because you have them sign a waiver that did not include solo diving it would then be excluded from the waiver I think. Meaning you could be in trouble with the wrong persons family.

[ Am I being negligent by allowing that/ those divers on my boat?]

Only if you are aware of what is going on. If they tell you on the boat that they dive as a buddy and in the dive they split up that would be their own fault you had no control but if you become aware and do nothing then that could be implied knowledge and consent. But there is nothing to charge you for as it is up to them after they get in the water and there is no law to say you can not dive solo.

[However I must add that I have been on dives earlier in my diving "career" where the buddy was the reason for the increased risk!]

I think that is why a lot of people even consider doing it and with good reasons often. And does your buddy become negligent in a law suit if they fail you as a dive buddy ?

My thoughts
Cheers
Derek

 

[Scuba]

there is no law to say you can not dive solo.

Quote:
[However I must add that I have been on dives earlier in my diving "career" where the buddy was the reason for the increased risk!]

I think that is why a lot of people even consider doing it and with good reasons often. And does your buddy become negligent in a law suit if they fail you as a dive buddy ?

To expand on the above:

Many divers have been conditioned to believe that if you dive solo you must be on some kind of kamikaze mission. This is utterly false. In other words, solo diving, in and of itself, is not any more an example of negligent or reckless diving than buddy diving can be.

If you are aware of negligent behaviour taking place and you allow it to continue, then I can see a liability issue.

Would you feel any different if you were taking divers to do wreck, mixed gasses, rebreather type dives, SoScuba? You can practice any of these types of dives safely or not, just like solo. There are probably much fewer rebreather, tri-mix gas, and other type divers than solo divers. There are more training courses available for non solo diving due to factors that have impacted the evolution of dive history, as opposed to a risk/safety equation differentiating solo from others today. My opinion. Then again, the law is a different animal, its your neck, your call.

We are probably not going to get much more than has already been offered from the solo liability perspective. But keep it coming, the better it is understood, the better for all

Dive safe. How, is non of anyone else's business. Luckily - so far. Unfotunately, many choose to inject their prejudices here, devoid of substance capable of withstanding peer scrutiny, and tell others how they should dive. Its my life, I choose.

If I seem to be arguing for solo diving, it is becuase you can't address the liability issue without addressing its viability, in order to frame it in proper context.

 

[wolf eel]

[If I seem to be arguing for solo diving, it is becuase you can't address the liability issue without addressing its viability, in order to frame it in proper context.]

That is the best statment ever to do with this. Because without being Pro Solo and explain how it has evolved and how safe it is then the liability for others will never stop.

I also agree that if you see people doing bad practice and do nothing you could become a walking law suit. But a boat operator should never be considered a target by others. Diving is what you the diver makes it and if you choose to dive solo then that is your choice. Liability should end there.

If you where taken out on a boat and was told you had no buddy so jump in and have fun the wreck is that way then yes you did not choose with the same frame of mind and liaibility starts.

As for how each person dives I agree again it is up to us and I for one love doing it solo nobody to worry about and nobody to change your profile half way.

Cheers
Derek

 

[PRL]

Well, some time passed and I cooled down . Now back to the topic. When I started this topic I had a somewhat clear understanding that an instructor following SDI standards had little to worry about in tearms of loosing a law suit. I just found a few words in civil law to play around with. Over the course of this topic I have learned alot and have since changed my mind. It is clear to me that a law suit like the example I gave, if not sattled out of court, has a good chance of going to trial. It will be in hands of plaintiff and defence lawyers trying to impose their side on the Jury. I have looked at SDI minimum solo skill requirements and it accured to me that an OW student can learn those skills in less than one day. I also looked at the course prerequisites and there is none besides 100 logged dives (hehehe I think we have this one covered) I think we all agree that solo diving if not done properly by an experienced diver can be dangerous. But if we can not convince our own divers that solo students meet the minimum experience requirements by showing their 100 logged dives and during the course that they meet the minimum performance standards or even that those standards exist, how can a defence lawyer hope to convince the jury that the instructor was prudent and reasonable by exepting a log book as proof of experience and teaching skills that an OW student can learn but can not comprehend their importance. In jurys mind the instructor would be neglegant because he should have known that his solo students could be straight out of OW class and defenitly not experienced and ready for solo diving.

BTW, All divers that have at least 20 dives logged over 2 years and don't have a c-card because your buddy tough you to dive or you have a c-card that is not recognized world wide or in the country you are in right now. You can go to a PADI center and ask for the experienced diver program. The instructor will give you a scuba review, asses your knowledge with an exam, asses your skills with check out dives, and hand you a c-card. And that's no bull

 

[wolf eel]

[PADI center and ask for the experienced diver program. The instructor will give you a scuba review, asses your knowledge with an exam, asses your skills with check out dives, and hand you a c-card. And that's no bull]

I asked a P.A.D.I instructor guy and he said that may happen but the "C" card the diver would never get. With out taking the course. What a way to save money. Just dive with some buddies and build a log book and show you can dive and away you go. It's all about liability.

I am going to post a thread about Log Books and see how people view the log book. As I differ completley about log books and the law with out the C card you have no valid way to proove you just rented gear to a knowlegable person all you saw was written words on a dive log. Thats like showing paper work but no license. And I believe that could cost you yout store.

Cheers
Derek

 

[Rick Inman]

BTW, All divers that have at least 20 dives logged over 2 years and don't have a c-card because your buddy tough you to dive or you have a c-card that is not recognized world wide or in the country you are in right now. You can go to a PADI center and ask for the experienced diver program. The instructor will give you a scuba review, asses your knowledge with an exam, asses your skills with check out dives, and hand you a c-card. And that's no bull

So what? As long as someone has the skills, who cares who he learned from?
-Oh NO! Never mind! Ignore that last statement, I didn't mean it! I don't know what the GENESIS of that remark was... :11:

Seriously, when I first got back into diving, I needed a new copy of my C card and found out that all of the NASDS (now, SSI) records from the 70' burned up in a fire. I went down to my LDS, explained the situation, and for $50 they put me through a 20 min refresher and reissued me the card. No paperwork, no log book, no written test, nothing. The only paperwork they were interested in had a picture of Grant on it.

 

[wolf eel]

[(now, SSI) records from the 70' burned up in a fire. I went down to my LDS, explained the situation, and for $50 they put me through a 20 min refresher and reissued me the card. No paperwork, no log book, no written test, nothing. The only paperwork they were interested in had a picture of Grant on it.]

Not bad but had you in the next couple of days had an accident and your wife said she felt you had not been properly retrained what could have happened then ?

And the point of a course is to show you have paid money into the system. Is that right?

Cheers
Derek