New level of insta-buddy trouble

[Cacia]

This is why you basically can only trust yourself. period. anything more than that is too convuluted for me. Think things through, only trust yourself. You are your only constant. Great post, great discussion but it only makes me dig in deeper with my beliefs. "Group mentality" is your #1 enemy. It was the divers fault that he died.

 

[Diver0001]

The really troublsome part of this decision is this one line:

A ‘buddy’ assumes the responsibility for monitoring and assisting the other member of the ‘buddy’ team at all times

If the court has decided, that a buddy "assumes the reponsibility" that can be read that you as buddy have a positive duty to monitor and assist at all times and if you don't you can be held liable for failing to have met the "duty of care" of a 'dive buddy'.

And the point is????

I don't know what kind of buddy you are but I wouldn't expect anything less from my buddy and I don't think my buddy should expect anything less from me....

This whole thing is a storm in a glass of water. A diver died and the judge said that he should have had a buddy and that having one might have helped.

Anyone disagree with that?

The only problem here is for the type of person who abandons his/her buddy as soon as the flippers hit the water....and frankly, if this is their attitude then they deserve what they get if their buddy has an accident....

R..

 

[lowwall]

As much as people ***** about lawsuits, this is a good example of the level of negligence you have to prove to actually win one in a recreational pursuit setting.

The court in this case explicitly recognized a complete bar to recovery where a plaintiff has reasonably chosen to bear the risk of a particular harm. They give the example of someone getting hit by a stray ball at a baseball game. In our terms, they would have barred recovery from any harm that resulted from a true recreational dive.

However, in this case, the dive charter exceeded all safety standards for a recreational dive, so there was no bar to recovery. At this point it becomes a question of contributory negligence, i.e. how much each party was at fault.

Back to the buddy situation. This case was about the charter's liability, any speculations on the responsibility of buddies to each other (as opposed to the responsibility of the charter to assign buddies) have no legal force. Note that this decision actually would protect the dive charter from those who intentionally plan on diving solo, since solo divers choose to bear certain risks and thus would be barred from recovering from an injury arising out of those risks. At worst this decision would require charters to at least offer everyone a chance to buddy up, and presumably to assign a DM to an odd man/woman out who wanted a buddy. All the boats I've been on do this anyway - so what's the harm here?

 

[BigJetDriver]

Yeah, again we are into the shoulda-coulda-woulda's. The simple truth is that if you go into a dive that results in "glass ceilings", you damn-well better have tools in place to help you when Dr. Murphy strikes.

To set up a dive like this, or any other dive that puts you beyond certain limits, you have to have enough basic training and intelligence to put back-ups in place. You have to KNOW that Dr. Murphy WILL hit you right in the cojones at the worst possible time, and you had better darn well be prepared.

As for the diver, I believe that the judge correctly identified the psychological pressure on the diver to do the dive. We know it is a powerful force. Look at what happened with the Rouses on their "Last Dive"! He (the diver) did not have enough experience to know that he SHOULD have refused the dive.

 

[ItsBruce]

Lowwall is quite right that the case is "about the charter's liability, any speculations on the responsibility of buddies to each other (as opposed to the responsibility of the charter to assign buddies) have no legal force." While the speculations may have no legal force, it is the "thin edge of the wedge."

It is not matter of responsibility. It is a matter of opening the door for litigation. Buddies may be in a special relationship such that one has a legal duty (as opposed to a moral duty) to act so as to protect each other. I haven't yet found any cases specifically saying so. I would not be shocked if there were.

While there are defenses such as assumption of the risk as lowall so nicely described, it is a lot "safer" if there is not a duty to act in the first instance.

Again, duty or not, I'll look out for a buddy so long as I possibly can without endangering someone else or seriously endangering myself. However, I'd sure like to know that my inability to prevent an injury will not land me in court. Remember, just because you did not do anything wrong does not mean you won't end up having to defend a lawsuit. And, even if you win, you still have to pay an attorney.

 

[OE2X]

At what point during this dive was the rule:
"A diver can thumb the dive at any time" abandoned?

Not to mitigate what Bob has articulated so well, but even in a case where ignorance is bliss, to me the ultimate responsibility lies with the diver.

Those who know me, know that I work with athletes doing extreme sports. At no time on any of my photoshoots has an athlete ever felt that he or she must perform the stunt if it doesn't feel right. We spend a great deal of money to do many of these shoots and that never factors into doing it or not.

Granted I work with enlightened people. The risks that they assume will get them killed if they screw up. They are not weekend warriors.

The point that I'm trying to make is that there is an avalanche of abdicating responsibility for our own decisions. Ultimately we should hold ourselves accountable for our actions and not place that burden on another. Unless this person was coerced into the dive then their ignorance of dive profile shouldn't be a factor.

 

[ItsBruce]

One other point about the Tancredi case: The DM suffered DCS when he surfaced to get help for Tancredi. Remember that he was already OOA. What's the chance he could have met his deco obligation while sharing air? That only serves to show how poorly the dive had been planned.

Also note: The boat captain got sued, but the court found he had done nothing wrong. While he won, he had to go through the whole lawsuit.

 

[Darnold9999]

And the point is????

I don't know what kind of buddy you are but I wouldn't expect anything less from my buddy and I don't think my buddy should expect anything less from me....

This whole thing is a storm in a glass of water. A diver died and the judge said that he should have had a buddy and that having one might have helped.

Anyone disagree with that?

The only problem here is for the type of person who abandons his/her buddy as soon as the flippers hit the water....and frankly, if this is their attitude then they deserve what they get if their buddy has an accident....

R..

The point is that the moment you open this particular door (note I said this is a big IF) then you do have a duty of care and someone else - not you - decides what that duty is and if you breached it. If you at the time evaluate the risk as too great and decide not to help - as I was taught in my rescue course is the appropriate response in such a case - but a judge disagrees, your life savings just disappeared.

Personally, I prefer to remain responsible for me and will render all the aid I can. However, I really would like the GS Laws to cover me if I do my best and the end result is somebody dies. I REALLY don't ever want to be the defendant in any legal case. Even if you win you lose.

Given that the agencies and instructors stress the buddy system, your responsibilities within it, and have made carrying an octo for sharing air the "standard" equipment for divers, it is entirely possible that the dive industry is creating a legal duty where one did not exist.

This has consequenses that are worth exploring beyond the simplistic, if you are worried about this you must be a lousy buddy.

 

[OE2X]

Look at what happened with the Rouses on their "Last Dive"! He (the diver) did not have enough experience to know that he SHOULD have refused the dive.

BJD - Don't the police have a rule that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

Does that same rule not apply to diving?

 

[ItsBruce]

One more note: The diver didn't bring the lawsuit. His family did. I'd like to think he would have taken full responsibility for his errors in going on the dive and not thumbing it sooner. Non-diving family members probably don't see it that way.

Everyone should read Uncle Pug's thread on "If I should die while diving."