New level of insta-buddy trouble

[LSDeep]

LSDeep: Stay tuned for my article on the liability of a DM who is just another diver along for the ride. ... Low risk of liability while not acting as a DM.

youre right - i am sorry to take it slightly off topic.

 

[LSDeep]

Sounds like a good plan to me.


I suspect you didn't just fall out of the sky being "perfect." Everybody was new once, and everybody can use a hand from a more experienced diver. Where would you be today if everybody else refused to dive with you because you were new?

Terry

yep, everybody was (even me, surprise )!!! and i didnt try to imply that i wouldnt help or take an insta buddy (so to speak). i just tried to say - if i am a client, dont push your "(in your eyes "hopeless") guests on me. sure i prefer a "perfect" divebuddy or even none (i have to admit - i really prefer that) but i am willing and happy to dive with less experienced divers and (yeah even) pass on advice and tips in a non - doctrinating way . and yes sure you are right where would i be today (or most of us for that matter) without that. i was more thinking of the (many) dc's that just use you as a paying dm / instr. so and now i will stop that - i dont want to apologize again for starting to take it off topic here .

 

[ItsBruce]

I, too, have a fundamental problem with the notion that a person shirks his own responsibility to himself and yet seek to hold another responsible for the mistake. (I use the masculine tense not because I'm sexist, but because its awkward to write gender neutral terms. And writing in gender neutral terms does not necessarily mean one is not sexist.)

The law tries to accomodate the fact that both sides may have been negligent and that the negligence of each was a substantial factor in the injury. Right or wrong (I withhold comment), the law tries to apportion fault. It is called "comparative negligence." FWIW, Trancredi was found to have been 20% at fault.

Now, since I started this thread, I am going to digress. Lawyers are only partly to blame for the horrible mess that our legal system is in. There are more lawyers than there are good cases, so many find themselves having to take the scraps. Clients are also a problem. They don't want to take responsibility for themselves and look for a scapegoat. Given the huge amounts juries tend to award, even on stupid cases, it is not surprising that there are lots of people who look at lawsuits like getting a lottery ticket. Clients are the ones who create the scraps that the scavangers compete for. Jurrors are also partly to blame. They give windfalls. If awards fairly compensated those who were injured, assuming the defendant was negligent in the first instance, people would not be so anxious to sue. And, the media is to blame. The media reports when there is a huge verdict, e.g. the McDonalds coffee case. It rarely reports when a frivolous case is dismissed as such or when a defendant is found not to be liable. It also rarely reports when a huge verdict is reduced or even reversed entirely. Thus, jurrors start off with an erroneous world-view.

Has everyone read Uncle Pug's thread on "If I should die while diving"? It is well worth reading.

 

[LSDeep]

good point there, being originally german (having lived allover incl usa) the lawsuits in the states just blow my mind! if i could pull that in germany or many other countries - gee i wouldnt have to worry about my future anymore LOL!!! there is something like a "law of common sense" that applies sometimes (to get onto your mc donalds case). something like that would have been thrown out of court in germany during the first hearing, with you paying all legal expenses! another one (i followed lately) is this northern east coast guy, convicted of killing his wife. i will not even go into details or my views (they are closed to the verdict in general), but how can a jury award any amount of money without the guy being convicted in a criminal court first???? its like - yeah you didnt do it, but "we the laymen" decide that you still pay a bunch of millions???? come on - as long as law is handled that way nobody will "hold his butt in the wind" to see what happen! one reason i stopped very fast to deal with scuba inside us - borders on a professional level. ...and now i do it again...i apologize for turning your thread around... i will stay away from it from now, i promise .

 

[Storm]

The alternative is to accept government-paid medical care and all malpractice woes will disappear. Of course, physician wages will probably be cut far more than their insurance dues, but you didn't really expect them to receive the benefits of a free market without its costs?

Well the whole idea of a giovernemt-paid health care system making malpractice woes disapper is off the mark a bit. I live in a counttry that has governmetn paid health care, and doctors still have to maintain their own insurance and can still get sued.

From what I have seen watching the most notable civil cases, on both sides of the border, liberalism in the way judges interpret the law and riduclous monetary settlements are the root of the problem.

Case,

A woman in Ontario Canada attends an office party. Gets tanked. has car keys taken away, and is cutt off fromthe bar where the employer was holding the party. She gets sent home by the employer via a cab. She decided it still party time and uses her second set of keys. Goes back to car, takes car to anoher bar, and drink some more, then tries to drive home and eventually puts herself into a wheelchair for life. She sued the employer, the first bar, the second bar for negligence causing harm. The employer was found guilty, for hosting the party (despite the fact he took her first of keys and sent her home in the cab...(result company bankrupt and 10 employees put out of work), bar number one found guilty for allowing her to get drunk (result bar goes bankrupt, anouther 20 folks out of a job), and the secoind bar gets the same tratment as the first. The woman is not held accountable for her own actions and is rewarded for being stupid, and not making her life her responsibly.

Case
A woman sues for wrongfull death of her son due to a driving accident (not his fault). Her monetary claim is for 5 million dollars. Not to speak ill of the dead, but he's an average joe worker, no specialized training just you run of the mill average working joe. His lifetime potential earning is somewhere around one million. The court awards her claim (after all it just an insurance comapny who ends up paying right) despite the fact the award is way too much; considering the potential earning of the individual.

Until we get can get a grip on how civil awards are established, start holding people responsible for their actions, and holding judges accountable for really poor interpretations of the law, we're doomed to see more of these types of frivolous actions.

 

[Supernal]

I do firmly believe, however that the highest level of responsibility should lie between the diver him/ herself and the the trainer that certified him/her. In the real world I am well aware that accepting personal responsibility for your own poor decisions is a rare thing these days but I believe it should be considered regardless.

Well said!

 

[Cacia]

Until we get can get a grip on how civil awards are established, start holding people responsible for their actions, and holding judges accountable for really poor interpretations of the law, we're doomed to see more of these types of frivolous actions.
__________________

yes, finally.

 

[wedivebc]

Until we get can get a grip on how civil awards are established, start holding people responsible for their actions, and holding judges accountable for really poor interpretations of the law, we're doomed to see more of these types of frivolous actions.

We actually have an advantage in Canada, or at least I thought so before I read your post, that civil cases are decided by judges in Canada not juries who can't wait to get home to their trailer because Jerry Springer is on in 1/2 hr.

 

[Storm]

We actually have an advantage in Canada, or at least I thought so before I read your post, that civil cases are decided by judges in Canada not juries who can't wait to get home to their trailer because Jerry Springer is on in 1/2 hr.

The drunk driver case was just over two years ago, and is not isolated. We in Canada are actually in worse shape than you may think. Judges are appointed, not elected. We've had too many successive Liberal governments and their judicial appointments.

Witness the stupidiy of some of the Supreme Court rulings. Judges are bending over to appease the politically correct, and replacing personal responsibilty and accountability with society should have done.....thinking.

Criminals have more rights than victums and their families. Civil suits are starting to reach the point of stupidity.

Case...you'll love this one

Man attends a backyard BBQ. Gets drunks (on booze he brought himself) the host was not servicing guests alcohol. Drunken fool, enter the hosts, house, goes to the upper floor, opens the door to the master bedroom, goes out onto the upper deck off the master bedromm and does his best attempt a gainer off the balcony into the pool below. Result: wheelchair for life. Drunk sues the host claiming that the host was negligent and should have LOCKED the DOOR to the BEDROOM to prevent him from gain access to teh uppoer deck to begin with (the backdoor to the house was open to allow the guests to use the lower floor bathroom), and wins close to a million for medical bills and pain and suffering.

Nice eh?

If you think we have it better here... nit time to rethink....just look and the YOA, where a 16 year old kid can buy an illegale handgun, and in an atempt to use it to kill a rival gang memeber, kills an innocent bystander, and get a whopping 3 years.

3 gang memebers in Ottawa kidnap a teenage boiy and girl, object rape (hot curling iron) the girl, kill the boy....total time servered 5 yrs.

These are not isolated incidents in poor judingment on the part of the justices in question, they are the norm.

Better here, a pleasant dream.

 

[ItsBruce]

Until we get can get a grip on how civil awards are established, start holding people responsible for their actions, and holding judges accountable for really poor interpretations of the law, we're doomed to see more of these types of frivolous actions.

As I said before, ... never mind, the next three pages are way off topic. I'll delete it myself.