Non professional divers taking very young children diving (even in a pool)

[Charles2]

Being a grandpa, and a scuba diver, I have let my grandchildren breathe from my regulator while they were in the pool. But only after they had asked, and then only while I held on to them. I am quite confident they were OK then and OK now.

Everybody who has ever gotten hooked on this sport has a story. I hope that my grandchildren will tell their grandchildren about their grandpa, and how much he enjoyed spending time with them and teaching them about the fun things in life.

Although a little off the OP's topic, I remember my first experience at trying to breath underwater. I think I was around 12 or 13 years old when I got the garden hose out and carefully blew all the water out of it. I left one end of the hose in the yard, carefully put my thumb over the other end, and dove into the deep end of the pool. Then, I placed the hose in my mouth, removed my thumb and tried to take a breath. I thought my lungs, intestines, and several other major internal organs were about to get sucked up through the hose..........I survived, but if I had had a grandpa willing to share a little knowledge, I may have been a little better off - and safer.

 

[NAM001]

Thanks Charles 2 , and that is one of my main issues with the topic in general. The next is the scuba police attitude of the shop. Cale C hit it right on. Next is tht the worst case scenearo appeared to be responded to. If the customer has a cert, the standard is met to rent. There are many things, any shop has to deal with. Legal requirements, business practices (formal on paper requirements) industry standards ect. Untill Gramps says he is FORMALLY teaching his kids becuase he has a 30 yo instructor card. I dont see where the shop has any intrest. Standards are just that. Not legally binding. You know like recommended depth of 60 ft for OW's. Or 1 on 4 student ratio's. There are those things that do not involve you till your premisis is used like your pool. There are those things that people have peeves about and use the business to further that agenda. What would have happened if instead of refusing to rent the tank, the shop called child protective services. Would they think CPS would think that the child needed to be removed from the situation. I thik a shallow pool is and extreemly low risk enviromment to expose the grand kids to scuba. I would do it. Im not sure i would have the kids strap on the gear. but i would weight the tank to the bottom of the shallow part of the pool to provide breathing ability that does not encumber the kids ability to surface in say 3 ft of water. There is too much fear in what if's that are being allowed to control our daily lives. Still its his shop and he can do what he wants because its his shop. These behaviors are always a double edged sword.

 

[tstormdiver]

Thanks Charles 2 , and that is one of my main issues with the topic in general. The next is the scuba police attitude of the shop. Cale C hit it right on. Next is tht the worst case scenearo appeared to be responded to. If the customer has a cert, the standard is met to rent. There are many things, any shop has to deal with. Legal requirements, business practices (formal on paper requirements) industry standards ect. Untill Gramps says he is FORMALLY teaching his Grandkids becuase he has a 30 yo instructor card.

He did say that he was putting them on scuba. He had no instructor card that he mentioned or otherwise. ONLY OW. I'm sure Charles would have been very proud if one of his grand kids had panicked & bolted & badly injured themselves, as can happen in only 3 ft of water. But hey, it's all fun,... until someone DOES get hurt, right? You must remember, these were NOT his kids,.. but rather his kid's kids. Possible he may have been the legal guardian,.. but I doubt it. Yes, I know,.. there are many on the board that "Don't need no stinking instructor, I know it all". No, I am not any "scuba Police", but I will not expose the dive shop I work for to that potential liability once the grandfather announced his intentions.

 

[Seya]

We are lucky he didn't teach them how to ride a bike. You can get hurt by only riding 3 feet.
I'm surprised that Walmart can stay in business by selling bikes to people without their instructor cards. Maybe we should sick the scuba police on them to smarten them up
Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

 

[Frosty]

Thanks Charles 2 , and that is one of my main issues with the topic in general. The next is the scuba police attitude of the shop. Cale C hit it right on. Next is tht the worst case scenearo appeared to be responded to. If the customer has a cert, the standard is met to rent. There are many things, any shop has to deal with. Legal requirements, business practices (formal on paper requirements) industry standards ect. Untill Gramps says he is FORMALLY teaching his kids becuase he has a 30 yo instructor card. I dont see where the shop has any intrest. Standards are just that. Not legally binding. You know like recommended depth of 60 ft for OW's. Or 1 on 4 student ratio's. There are those things that do not involve you till your premisis is used like your pool. There are those things that people have peeves about and use the business to further that agenda. What would have happened if instead of refusing to rent the tank, the shop called child protective services. Would they think CPS would think that the child needed to be removed from the situation. I thik a shallow pool is and extreemly low risk enviromment to expose the grand kids to scuba. I would do it. Im not sure i would have the kids strap on the gear. but i would weight the tank to the bottom of the shallow part of the pool to provide breathing ability that does not encumber the kids ability to surface in say 3 ft of water. There is too much fear in what if's that are being allowed to control our daily lives. Still its his shop and he can do what he wants because its his shop. These behaviors are always a double edged sword.

KWS-I think you and others have missed the point.
In the OP's shoes I wouldn't want to be responsible for contributing to death or injury to anyone.
That is my choice, my life, my conscience.
Im not stopping the old fella from getting a fill.
Im just not gonna do it for him.
In essence --he can go ahead and do his own thing. Im not gonna help him do it equally im not gonna stop him.
Incidently in my country you are really unlikely to get into legal trouble if worst case scenario did happen.
When there are lawyers lining up ready to "sue your a%% off" if something happened Im surprised at how many are thinking a pro shop should knowingly supply in this situation

 

[tstormdiver]

You know guys,... Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Regardless, I will err on the side of caution, when it is needed & be able to sleep at night.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

When there are lawyers lining up ready to "sue your a%% off" if something happened Im surprised at how many are thinking a pro shop should knowingly supply in this situation

As has already been covered, while anyone can be sued for anything, the more legally risky proposition for a shop is having its personnel exercising their own subjective, untrained judgment as to which certified divers are safe enough to rent gear and which certified divers present an unreasonable safety risk to themselves/others.

If you're sued because Gramps's 5y/o embolized in the backyard pool, you hire a cheap lawyer to file a pre-answer MTD that cites to the facts of Gramps's c-card, industry standards, and your rental agreement's terms that say only certified divers may use the rented gear, and the law that says no legal duty=failure to state a claim.

If you're sued because the next guy after Gramps rented gear and then hurt himself or someone else, you're in for an expensive trial over whether you breached the duty of care you assumed, as evidenced by your prior conduct of not just making sure divers were certified to rent your gear, but that they were certified and evaluated as safe by your own standards.

Take the moral high ground all you want -- just don't kid yourself that it's helping protect your shop from litigation or that you're not putting your insurance coverage at risk.

 

[NAM001]

I understood that I was attempting to speek of a difference of formal training vs informal. I understand you position. but do you believe you actually have a potential liability. I don't think so. I doubt your shop would have any legal exposure. As it is you have a he said she said. you say you did not know what he was going to use it for and he would say you did. You may not consider your self scuba police but your behavior says otherwise. Not to mention the appearance of being over protective. Not trying to pick on you however,,,, those kids are not our direct responsibility. Just like your kids are not my concern. The greatest damage is not what you have done but what your thought process indicates you would do in the future. Im not sure I would want that process determining if my tank should pass a vis based on the knowledge a child would be using it and as such needs a level of guardianship above that of an adult. Like I said before all things are double edged swords. Your attention to detail would be more than welcome when it came to a regulator rebuild and adjustment. But would not want o=you to decide if the tires on my car needed changed if based on other than from measurement from a standard tread device. Once again not picking. Its a process issue for me.

There are a group of women that spend their mornings driving 20 mph in a 25mph school zone slowing traffic to prevent the possible car hittitng a child in a cross walk. There are cross guards ect. The mothers think the speed limit should be lowered , the city does not agree, so they take this action their own. The cause traffic jams, which they intend to do to make drivers drive on other roads to get from point a to b. intentions are good but the application is not.

He did say that he was putting them on scuba. He had no instructor card that he mentioned or otherwise. ONLY OW. I'm sure Charles would have been very proud if one of his grand kids had panicked & bolted & badly injured themselves, as can happen in only 3 ft of water. But hey, it's all fun,... until someone DOES get hurt, right? You must remember, these were NOT his kids,.. but rather his kid's kids. Possible he may have been the legal guardian,.. but I doubt it. Yes, I know,.. there are many on the board that "Don't need no stinking instructor, I know it all". No, I am not any "scuba Police", but I will not expose the dive shop I work for to that potential liability once the grandfather announced his intentions.

 

[redacted]

Somehow, it is just not as funny as Seinfeld episode #116.

 

[Lorenzoid]

We are lucky he didn't teach them how to ride a bike. You can get hurt by only riding 3 feet. . . .

Is the likelihood of injury the same for teaching a child to ride a bike as for taking the child on scuba in the pool? Is the potential extent of injury the same?

I'm not so sure of the answers to these questions. If a child doesn't pedal, I'm holding onto the bike. If a child doesn't breathe properly, what can I do? I have a good understanding of how a child behaves when first put on a bike and held onto by his dad as he attempts to pedal down the driveway, but I don't have a good understanding of how a child might behave underwater with a reg in his mouth. If a child falls off the bike, he's not likely to do more harm than scratch himself, as I'm holding onto him, and he's wearing a helmet. But I really don't have any familiarity with how badly one can injure their lungs in a pool by standing up in three feet of water. Some posts here suggest it can be harmful, while others dispute that. Who knows. I have a good understanding of cuts and scrapes, but I don't know much about lungs. Do you?

As has already been covered, while anyone can be sued for anything, the more legally risky proposition for a shop is having its personnel exercising their own subjective, untrained judgment as to which certified divers are safe enough to rent gear and which certified divers present an unreasonable safety risk to themselves/others.

If you're sued because Gramps's 5y/o embolized in the backyard pool, you hire a cheap lawyer to file a pre-answer MTD that cites to the facts of Gramps's c-card, industry standards, and your rental agreement's terms that say only certified divers may use the rented gear, and the law that says no legal duty=failure to state a claim.

If you're sued because the next guy after Gramps rented gear and then hurt himself or someone else, you're in for an expensive trial over whether you breached the duty of care you assumed, as evidenced by your prior conduct of not just making sure divers were certified to rent your gear, but that they were certified and evaluated as safe by your own standards.

Take the moral high ground all you want -- just don't kid yourself that it's helping protect your shop from litigation or that you're not putting your insurance coverage at risk.

I pretty much agree with all that. But are you sure no lawyer can make a case in any jurisdiction that there is some additional legal duty once a customer announces (without you having asked) that he's going to do something unconventional with the rented gear--something his c-card doesn't anticipate him doing, is not the norm in the industry, violates his contract with the dive shop, etc.? If you tell me you plan to build a bomb, should I still sell you the truckload of fertilizer?

I think a customer announcing his intentions to do something unconventional can create a dilemma for a shop: (A) rent him the gear and, if someone sues you, hope the defense that he had a c-card works to shield you from liability, or (B) don't rent him the gear and hope that a second customer doesn't put you in the same position AND, if someone sues you, doesn't cleverly characterize your decision not to rent to the first customer as based on "shop standards."