Negligent Instructor?

[VeniVidi]

The cert card is to show you have done something to train yourself in that area. It does not mean you can forget your brain at the gate but that you have considered all out comes and choose to take a solo diving course that in its self said you have excepteded all risk.

This might lead to the reverse conclusion: If one does not own a cert card, one

1. has not done something to train him-/herself in that area (i.e. solo dive);
2. is entitled to forget the brain at the gate; and,
3. is not capable of considering risk.

Sorry wolf eel for hijacking your words. I know you did not mean it that way. Yet the quote is so nice to demonstrate where the perception might lead to. Why is anybody compelled to prove something to somebody else? Why would an instructor be liable who tries to remedy the above-mentioned flaws?
Following the thread, I think most of the relevant considerations to what might be used in a trial, have been outlined. However, what disturbs me, is that a lot of the thoughts tend to go to an implementation of standards (as if we had not enough of them). Let us face it: the probability of a lethal accident for diving is slim. The probability of solo lethal accidents even slimmer. Hence, the probability of being sued a negligent instructor converges to nil. Even though the thoughts made around this topic are more than justified, a standardization or other regulation would be an overkill and impedes freedom even more. I think spthomas brought it up right, by saying that risk must be evaluated as it is - not more, not less.

 

[wolf eel]

[Let us face it: the probability of a lethal accident for diving is slim. The probability of solo lethal accidents even slimmer. Hence, the probability of being sued a negligent instructor converges to nil.]

Do you really believe that an accident is all that slim ??? or lethal. That would depend on the odds and how much you dive.

Why is it that you feel solo divers will have less accidents then buddy divers ??? Also If a person teaches a bad class and a accident happens because of it even if it a solo diver it is going to cost a pretty penny in court I think?

Cheers
Derek

 

[VeniVidi]

Hi Derek

Your thinking about the correlation of diving frequency and accident probability is right, but unfortunately it does not contribute significantly to the odds. I hereby refer to statistics that are available (such as national or international statisitcs).

One example link I have found is

http://www.deepocean.net/deepocean/index.html?medic01.html

Your conclusion that the number of buddy accidents would exceed that of solo accidents is not what I have said. My reasoning was meant to be more straight line: If the probability of a diving accident incurred is low (0.06%), then the probability of lethal accidents is lower (0.004%). This includes both solo and buddy accidents. Let's assume that half of these accidents were solo dives (which is probably too high) and 50% of the solo divers have reportedly solo certificates, then the number of possible lawsuits would be close to zero (0.001%). You may however also find a dowloadable pdf-file interesting, even if it deals with cave accidents only.

http://www.iucrr.org/

Interesting enough that the majority of cave fatalalities happened with one or more buddies.

I agree with you that a lousy instruction may lead to a lawsuit as a consequence. But you know also that diving accidents - especially those happening under water - are often a concatenation of flaws. So one would have big troubles to identify and proove a single causality. Or in other words: no one can seriously tell that a poor instruction would be THE cause for the death of a diver.

 

[wolf eel]

[but unfortunately it does not contribute significantly to the odds.]

What I had ment by that was odd increase the more you do something.

[Your conclusion that the number of buddy accidents would exceed that of solo accidents is not what I have said.]

Me either. I have no conclusion about it at all. I feel safer alone. It just seems that you hear loads of out of air type problems when solo diving. And I explained how I felt in one of the earlier statments.

[ Or in other words: no one can seriously tell that a poor instruction would be THE cause for the death of a diver.]

It could from people watching that person before they got into the water. I guess.

Cheers
Derek

 

[VeniVidi]

It could from people watching that person before they got into the water. I guess.

Absloutely, just with the slight difference that it would be an indication rather than a proof. Look, there must be something really crazy like that the instructor has taught to fill up tanks with carbon dioxide and the like. This would prove the incompentency of that person yet not necessarily guilt. Or the case when a significant number of students have had accidents pretty shortly after their course would suspect (NOT prove) some inconsitencies. And this is what makes it so difficult and likwise diminishes the probability of a conviction.

 

[wolf eel]

[would suspect (NOT prove) some inconsitencies. And this is what makes it so difficult and likwise diminishes the probability of a conviction.]

I hope you understand that I fully agree a conviction of a instructor would be next to impossible. In diving ounce you are on your own. And I feel it should be that way.

But if you where taught how to dive solo all wrong or not realy at all. Your wife/husband/partner(lol) could sue. The chances of winning are slim. But to prove neglegents is not so hard. Bad training would be easy in someways if it was a very bad instructor of which I do not believe are around. Bad yes useless ?

But lets just say.

The guy/woman finnishs his course goes home and explians how if he runs into trouble he will save himself and goes on about how the instructor taught this and that. The next weekend he is found fetal style on the bottom of a bay.
The first thing his w/h/p does is starts to tell everybody how the person was so well trained and cannot understand what could have happened and explains the course, the person listening has loads of experience and realizes everything he had been taught was all wrong (what that could be I have no idea) but that would give somebody the ability to get it into a court room from their the GAMES would begin and how it would end is a waste trying to guess because it could go any way but the way you would think it should go. Thats the problem with law the courts have no real connection to the real world.



Cheers
Derek

 

[novadiver]

I hope you understand that I fully agree a conviction of a instructor would be next to impossible. In diving ounce you are on your own. And I feel it should be that way.

But if you where taught how to dive solo all wrong or not realy at all. Your wife/husband/partner(lol) could sue. The chances of winning are slim. But to prove neglegents is not so hard. Bad training would be easy in someways if it was a very bad instructor of which I do not believe are around. Bad yes useless ?

But lets just say.

The guy/woman finnishs his course goes home and explians how if he runs into trouble he will save himself and goes on about how the instructor taught this and that. The next weekend he is found fetal style on the bottom of a bay.
The first thing his w/h/p does is starts to tell everybody how the person was so well trained and cannot understand what could have happened and explains the course, the person listening has loads of experience and realizes everything he had been taught was all wrong (what that could be I have no idea) but that would give somebody the ability to get it into a court room from their the GAMES would begin and how it would end is a waste trying to guess because it could go any way but the way you would think it should go. Thats the problem with law the courts have no real connection to the real world

Cheers
Derek

Derek . the signed paperwork and release of liability are still legal documents. the fact of the diver dieing is not the responsibility of the instructor. If you take the solo class you will find that both SDI and the instructor are not responsible for any action of the diver. The dive industry has succesfully used liability waivers thoughout history to reduce their responsibility and liability.also on another note, the release of liability states that the heirs give up the right to sue also!!

 

[rjchandler]

.also on another note, the release of liability states that the heirs give up the right to sue also!!

This part usually doesn,t work - but it can vary from state to state (or province)

 

[wolf eel]

[Derek . the signed paperwork and release of liability are still legal documents.]

I know but does it holed up in court for neglegents. ?

[the fact of the diver dieing is not the responsibility of the instructor.]

Only if the instructor does the course as laid out by SDI

[another note, the release of liability states that the heirs give up the right to sue also!!]

Are you sure. Does that statment have any ground to stand on as you can not give up the rights of others. That may work for the crimminal side but what about the civil side of things. Wrongfull death is just that. My brothers death is a good example and his children won so what happen there ?
Not on the crimminal side but on the civil side. I mention (my brother) only as a foundation to what I am saying. Not for any other reason save the sorries for others. He had nothing to do with any agency. !!!!

Cheers
Derek

 

[VeniVidi]

Hi Derek

I think we have now come to a point where we speak the same language. I fully agree. And by saying

(what that could be I have no idea)

illustrates very neatly what it is all about: it (negligence) is a scarce occurence.

As for the liability releases stated by novadiver, we have to distinguish between the time DURING the training sessions and the time AFTERWARDS. The agreement signed by the student is valid only during the course and has no validity once the student has been successfully released by the instructor which is emphasized by the cert card. Otherwise court rooms would be overflooded by lawsuits against instructors, regardless of how long the instruction might lie back in the past. And again, spthomas had it right:

ANYONE can sue ANYONE for ANYTHING.

Negligence is thereby just one possible indication.