New level of insta-buddy trouble

[lowwall]

And they call liberals whiny.

Look people, out of all the millions of dives conducted in the USA, we have exactly one apellate court case addressing buddy responsibility. And they found the buddy wasn't at fault.

Also, historically we are nowhere near this country's personal litigation peak (on a per capita basis), which occurred in the late 1800s. More to the point, the per capita rate of cases filed is essentially the same as it was 50 years ago. The good old days were (gasp!) just like today.

So Americans (and other former English colonies) have always sued each other profusely (Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of plaintiffs? Si, El Guapo.). There is a reason for this. Our system is biased much more towards personal responsibility than the various continental systems. Meaning that the government sets only the broadest limits on the actions of individuals and lets us assume the risk of going too far. When we do go too far, injured parties have to recover from the person who hurt them rather than relying on the government to bail them out. It's true we have an extraordinarily inefficient system of redress, but Americans seem to feel that when everything is considered it still works out better than the alternative of heavy government regulation.

It's like doctors whining about malpractice insurance. It's high for a reason, an injured party has only one chance to recover all their current and future medical expenses and they have to do it through a very costly court system. 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?

 

[Supernal]

Hey, doesn't everyone work in front of a computer screen these days. It's easy to multitask when you are doing something boring.

No kidding. Even as we type, I am simultaneously:

-paying invoices
-ordering office supplies
-printing documents
-booking catering for a meeting next week
-checking the status of eBay items I'm selling
-and of course, ScubaBoard!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

And they call liberals whiny.

Look people, out of all the millions of dives conducted in the USA, we have exactly one apellate court case addressing buddy responsibility. And they found the buddy wasn't at fault.

Also, historically we are nowhere near this country's personal litigation peak (on a per capita basis), which occurred in the late 1800s. More to the point, the per capita rate of cases filed is essentially the same as it was 50 years ago. The good old days were (gasp!) just like today.

So Americans (and other former English colonies) have always sued each other profusely (Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of plaintiffs? Si, El Guapo.). There is a reason for this. Our system is biased much more towards personal responsibility than the various continental systems. Meaning that the government sets only the broadest limits on the actions of individuals and lets us assume the risk of going too far. When we do go too far, injured parties have to recover from the person who hurt them rather than relying on the government to bail them out. It's true we have an extraordinarily inefficient system of redress, but Americans seem to feel that when everything is considered it still works out better than the alternative of heavy government regulation.

It's like doctors whining about malpractice insurance. It's high for a reason, an injured party has only one chance to recover all their current and future medical expenses and they have to do it through a very costly court system. 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?

Nicely putting things into a proper perspective ... but they will still call liberals whiny ... human nature is very much a pot-kettle condition ... :browsmile

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[RockPile]

Look people, out of all the millions of dives conducted in the USA, we have exactly one apellate court case addressing buddy responsibility. And they found the buddy wasn't at fault.

The court did not address a buddy's responsibility. The court addressed the divemasters decision not to assign a buddy to Tancredi. The only person who wasn't found at fault was the boat operator.

I'm not sure if that changes anything in your post ranging from the colonies to medicare, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway...

JB

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

The court did not address a buddy's responsibility. The court addressed the divemasters decision not to assign a buddy to Tancredi. The only person who wasn't found at fault was the boat operator.

I'm not sure if that changes anything in your post ranging from the colonies to medicare, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway...

JB

I believe he was referring to Rasmussen v Bendotti ... http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=1725080&postcount=53

As you say ... the Tancredi case wasn't really about buddy responsibility ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Diver0001]

So Americans (and other former English colonies) have always sued each other profusely (Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of plaintiffs? Si, El Guapo.). There is a reason for this. Our system is biased much more towards personal responsibility than the various continental systems.

Really? Hmmm... This must be a matter of perspective.... I suppose you could also say that a government that refuses to set boundaries for behaviour creates a system of complete chaos where good people are afraid to go out in public.....No system is perfect, but from what I'm hearing a lot of people find the threat of being sued for what would appear to be a money-grubbing litigation-lottery resulting from fairly normal social interactions a little .... menacing, to say the least .... People from "continental" countries (speaking of perspective) by and large express amazement that such things are allowed to persist in a civilized country and I think even a lot of Americans are tired of it....

R..

 

[DivePartner1]

WARNING:

. . . 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. . . . ..

I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape about a single 13 years old trial court decision. By itself it is virtually meaningless and would have virtually no presidential value in any other district or even in a Hawaiian state court, for that matter.

Your risk of liability always depends upon the facts, as well as how tort happy your local jurisdiction is, and the rules of the court.

Some have developed very unfairly, some less so. For example, under comparative negligence laws of the worst states, a buddy found only 1% negligence vis a vis others can pay 100% of the judgment if the others are broke. Since some dive ops operate on a shoe string and are as collapsible as cab companies, so divers with retirement savings beware.

And don't rely too much on the so-called Good Samaritan laws in US or Canada. They vary from place to place but the Red Cross has been on a campaign recently to have states rewrite these laws so that only Red Cross trained first aid providers are protected. In some states, such as Texas, a doctor is never off the clock and never gets the benefit of the Good Samaritan law, even if offering emergency aid.

 

[boulderjohn]

I This means that you should also take the risks and outcomes of that for yourself. It may be a fault in equipment, okay, the equipment did not function as it was supposed to. That is a fair case. The coffee burned me because I dropped it in my lap...... ***. Coffee is supposed to be hot! You dropped it after you purchased it. When I grew up I was told that if I do something stupid, or dangerous, I should be ready to take the outcome....that is what my parents viewed as growin up, becoming an adult.

The McDonald's coffee case is often cited--as it is here--as an example of the the courts absurdly throwing out any sense of personal responsibility, which scares the hell out of people and makes it seem like someone providing a service has no hope. I read an analysis of this case a while ago, though, that indicates that the verdict is not as scary as it seems. I cannot remember the details, but I think I can give a reasonably accurate summary of the key points.

1. The coffee was not just hot--it was really hot--hot beyond industry standards. It caused physical harm that would not have occurred had the temperature been where it should have been.
2. At some time in the past--and I believe more than once--inspectors had notified them that their coffee was dangerously hot, and they had been ordered to remedy the situation.
3. They had made no effort to implement the required remedy.

 

[ArcticDiver]

Somewhere a few pages ago I think the practical point of all this was left in the windspray. As a diver I really don't care what liability, if any, my buddy may incur if I am killed. After all I am dead. Doesn't matter whose fault it is. Doesn't matter what businesses are shut down, or continue operation. I am dead. No matter the facts. I am dead.

So, the cold fact is that each diver is responsible for their own self-preservation. If they fail in that duty folks can sit around and for fun or profit, or both, hash out the residuals. But that doesn't help the guy mouldering in the grave or being recycled by the ocean creatures.

 

[lowwall]

Diver0001 -

I'm not defending it, just calling it like I see it. Where you end up on the spectrum of (roughly) laissez faire to a command economy is a discussion that definitely goes deeper than recreational limits.