ItsBruce
Contributor
WARNING:
I’ve been following a thread entitled “DMs can get in trouble.” As a result, I’ve done a bit of legal research on one of the items being discussed there. In the process, I found what I consider to be a whole new level of problems with “insta-buddies.” I hate to sound like Chicken Little in announcing that the sky is falling, but THE SKY IS FALLING.
Here is what I found: There was a lawsuit against a dive operator and dive master resulting from a diver’s death. The case was decided by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii in 1993. The case itself is entitled Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters and is found at 823 F.Supp. 778, for those who care. Basically, what happened was that Tancredi, an inexperienced diver with an OW certification, but no deep diving experience, went on a dive charter that took the group on a 145 foot dive with a bottom time of 20 minutes. The diver charter did not assign a buddy to Tancredi. The other divers had buddies. During the dive, Tancredi had an OOA. The DM had used the last of his own air to fill a lift bag on the anchor, was also OOA and couldn't help him. The DM was able to share with another diver and surfaced. Tancredi died. In the ensuing lawsuit, the court found the dive charter and DM were negligent for: failing to ascertain whether Tancredi was qualified for the dive, not ensuring Tancredi had a dive buddy, exceeding the PADI maximum depth, doing a deco dive, doing a dive that left divers with very little air at the end of the dive, and for the DM using up his remaining air to fill the lift bag.
Here is where things get scary for me: In finding the dive charter negligent in failing to assign Tancredi a buddy, the court said: “The evidence indicated that it is a breach of the standard of care in the recreational dive industry for a dive charter company to conduct a dive without assigning ‘buddy’ teams. A ‘buddy’ assumes the responsibility for monitoring and assisting the other member of the ‘buddy’ team at all times during a dive. The court finds that it is probable that an assigned ‘buddy’ would have assisted Tancredi by giving Tancredi additional air when he first indicated breathing difficulty and would have helped Tancredi to the surface at a time when his life could have been saved.”
I’m not going to get into distinctions between rulings that are binding precedent and comments which are not. I do not think that the quoted passage rises to the level of binding precedent. Too much of it relies on the specific evidence that was presented in the particular case. However, I could certainly see an attorney arguing that this case establishes a duty to assign a buddy. I could also see an attorney arguing that this case establishes what a buddy’s duty is, namely to “assume responsibility for monitoring and assisting the other member of the ‘buddy’ team.” I could also see another court adopting the arguments. Were that to happen, it would mean that a buddy who does not monitor and assist another member of the buddy team, could be held liable in the event of an injury.
I’m not particularly worried about being sued when my buddy is one of my own choosing. But, the court’s comments give real cause for concern when one gets paired up with a stranger. Maybe I’m being paranoid, but for as sue-happy as society has become, I think I'm justified in being concerned.
I will consider the feasibility of requiring that an insta-buddy sign a liability waiver before a dive. Depending on what I find, I may address this further.
I’ve been following a thread entitled “DMs can get in trouble.” As a result, I’ve done a bit of legal research on one of the items being discussed there. In the process, I found what I consider to be a whole new level of problems with “insta-buddies.” I hate to sound like Chicken Little in announcing that the sky is falling, but THE SKY IS FALLING.
Here is what I found: There was a lawsuit against a dive operator and dive master resulting from a diver’s death. The case was decided by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii in 1993. The case itself is entitled Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters and is found at 823 F.Supp. 778, for those who care. Basically, what happened was that Tancredi, an inexperienced diver with an OW certification, but no deep diving experience, went on a dive charter that took the group on a 145 foot dive with a bottom time of 20 minutes. The diver charter did not assign a buddy to Tancredi. The other divers had buddies. During the dive, Tancredi had an OOA. The DM had used the last of his own air to fill a lift bag on the anchor, was also OOA and couldn't help him. The DM was able to share with another diver and surfaced. Tancredi died. In the ensuing lawsuit, the court found the dive charter and DM were negligent for: failing to ascertain whether Tancredi was qualified for the dive, not ensuring Tancredi had a dive buddy, exceeding the PADI maximum depth, doing a deco dive, doing a dive that left divers with very little air at the end of the dive, and for the DM using up his remaining air to fill the lift bag.
Here is where things get scary for me: In finding the dive charter negligent in failing to assign Tancredi a buddy, the court said: “The evidence indicated that it is a breach of the standard of care in the recreational dive industry for a dive charter company to conduct a dive without assigning ‘buddy’ teams. A ‘buddy’ assumes the responsibility for monitoring and assisting the other member of the ‘buddy’ team at all times during a dive. The court finds that it is probable that an assigned ‘buddy’ would have assisted Tancredi by giving Tancredi additional air when he first indicated breathing difficulty and would have helped Tancredi to the surface at a time when his life could have been saved.”
I’m not going to get into distinctions between rulings that are binding precedent and comments which are not. I do not think that the quoted passage rises to the level of binding precedent. Too much of it relies on the specific evidence that was presented in the particular case. However, I could certainly see an attorney arguing that this case establishes a duty to assign a buddy. I could also see an attorney arguing that this case establishes what a buddy’s duty is, namely to “assume responsibility for monitoring and assisting the other member of the ‘buddy’ team.” I could also see another court adopting the arguments. Were that to happen, it would mean that a buddy who does not monitor and assist another member of the buddy team, could be held liable in the event of an injury.
I’m not particularly worried about being sued when my buddy is one of my own choosing. But, the court’s comments give real cause for concern when one gets paired up with a stranger. Maybe I’m being paranoid, but for as sue-happy as society has become, I think I'm justified in being concerned.
I will consider the feasibility of requiring that an insta-buddy sign a liability waiver before a dive. Depending on what I find, I may address this further.
