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

[Basking Ridge Diver]

"The Soup Nazi" Seinfeld episode #116, Season 7, September 1995
The character is a stone-faced immigrant chef with a thick moustache, renowned throughout Manhattan for his delicious soups. He demands that all customers in his restaurant meticulously follow his strict queuing, ordering, and payment policies. Failure to adhere to his demands brings the admonishment, "No soup for you!", whereupon the customer is refunded and denied his order.
The episode opens with Jerry going on and on about the delicious soups made by the Soup Nazi, making sure to "prep" George on the strict code of behavior required by the Soup Nazi in his store. But OMG . . . George makes a mistake while ordering soup by questioning the absence of bread, and is subsequently refused service.

(George notices he didn't get any bread with his soup.)

George: I didn't get any bread.

Jerry: Just forget it. Let it go.

George: Um, excuse me; I think you forgot my bread.

Soup Nazi: You want bread?

George: Yes please.

Soup Nazi: $3.00!

George: What?

Soup Nazi: No soup for you! (Snaps fingers.)

(The cashier takes away George's soup and gives him back his money.)

A while later . . .

George: I don't see how you can sit there eating that and not even offer me any.

Jerry: I gave you a taste. What do you want?

George: Why can't we share?

Jerry: I told you not to say anything! You can't go in there, brazenly flout the rules, and then think I'm going to share with you!

George: Do you hear yourself?

Jerry: I'm sorry. This is what comes from living under a Nazi regime!

Meanwhile, Elaine purchases an antique armoire, but cannot move it into the building on a Sunday and leaves Kramer to guard the armoire--which she must leave on the sidewalk. Elaine goes to purchase some soup, however, her behavior at the Soup Nazi's restaurant prompts him to shout, "No soup for you!" and ban her for one year.
Elaine's armoire is then stolen by a pair of homosexual "street toughs" who intimidate Kramer.
Kramer gains favor with the Soup Nazi and gives Kramer his own antique armoire. Kramer gives the armoire to Elaine as a replacement for her stolen one.
Elaine thanks the Soup Nazi for the armoire, but he declares that he never would have given it to Kramer if he knew it was for Elaine.
Elaine discovers the Soup Nazi's secret recipes in the old armoire and seeks revenge against him, taunting him, possibly also informing him for the first time of his popular nickname: "You're finished, Soup Nazi!"
This victory comes with a price, as the Soup Nazi decides to sell his remaining stock and close the business, to the dismay of everyone who loves his delicious soups.

 

[ZzzKing]

Ha got a lt of time on your hands BRD? ��

 

[Basking Ridge Diver]

Ha got a lt of time on your hands BRD? ��

Ha ha ha... as a matter of fact I do - winding down a project and transitioning to someone - new project starts in July... Looking to :goingdown: or have some fun poking around... lol

 

[NAM001]

Once again i understand your point.... And mine with others is that the shop has no obligation intrest or liability in the event. You can say you are not stopping him from getting an air fill when indeed the shop did and then used some nanny state logic to justify the act. I dont think the burdon of proof could ever be made for the concerns the shop attendant had,,, that he believed warrented his action. My position is that the shop has no legal or moral position on any legal use of the services provided. In short if the logic used to justify the act were applied globally there would be no diving. Nanny would shut it down. I acknoledge the shop can do what they want and that I would not use a shop that thought that way.

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

 

[redacted]

Once again i understand your point.... And mine with others is that the shop has no obligation intrest or liability in the event. You can say you are not stopping him from getting an air fill when indeed the shop did and then used some nanny state logic to justify the act. I dont think the burdon of proof could ever be made for the concerns the shop attendant had,,, that he believed warrented his action. My position is that the shop has no legal or moral position on any legal use of the services provided. In short if the logic used to justify the act were applied globally there would be no diving. Nanny would shut it down. I acknoledge the shop can do what they want and that I would not use a shop that thought that way.

And then bragging about it on the internet, thinking they had done such a wonderful thing. It is the thought that counts.

 

[Lorenzoid]

. . . I dont think the burdon of proof could ever be made for the concerns the shop attendant had,,, that he believed warrented his action. . . .

If you're so confident that a shop would never be held liable in this situation, can I tell every shop now that KWS is going to act as their insurer for this? I guess you would charge a very low premium, since the risk is so remote.

 

[Solacequest]

O.K. got a bit lampooned on my last post for assuming a level of inexperience, just because, he was planning on using a reg that hadn't been serviced in 10 plus years, may not even work, and hasn't dove in years in anything but a pool. (Also assuming that the pool is more than 3 feet deep; because who would bother with gear in 3 feet.) But I digress, thing is OP got that prickly on the back of the neck, bad idea pants, Huston we have a problem feeling. And decided not to help a bad Idea. Pick and outdoor industry and we all have the very easily avoided tragedies. Before I leared "proper" rock climbing technique I used to free solo (climb w/o rope harness or helmet) all the time as a kid 20 or 30 feet a few times a week, never fell never had a problem, and love climbing today. It was still stupid. One of my friends, who is a far better climber than I, free'd all the time, loved it, Until last year when he took a 60 foot decker and shattered too many bones to mention here..... It was an easy climb, like a staircase to most of us, Until the hold he went for broke off in his hand. S#$t happens. It's not being a nazi, or a policeman to refuse to help someone do something that is unsafe. I'm sure someone will disagree, But giving a 5 y/o an ancient, unserviced reg that may or may not work is NOT safe. But you would be wrong. Children have an automatic breath hold response. it's called the Mammalian Dive Reflex. this is why you can teach a baby to swim. We are hardwired to NOT breath underwater. This is straight up biology. Maybe this kid is advanced enough to be able to control it, but does the grandfather know about this? I do not mean to offend other Grandfathers who have taught their loved ones to dive, that is great, I just would not assume that everyone would be as conscious of possible risks. Yes, I'm writing another paragraph here, but It really sounds like the whole initial interaction went downhill at some point, Grandad got defensive with the whole "you can't control what I do" statement. In dealing with ppl about to do something that may be dangerous, (Shooting, kayaking, climbing, among other things) The best outcome always comes from taking the view of "How do we make this as safe as possible?" Usually by the end of that conversation, the slightly belligerent parent has decided that maybe this was not such a good idea to begin with. MANY times I have had Dad quite mad that I don't really want to take a 4 foot tall 10 year old kayaking, Until they find out that in the unlikely event of a capsize, the child will be pinned inside the overturned boat by their life jacket and will not be able to get themselves out, and will drown in minutes. If they still want to go, Dad MUST know that if the boat flips, He's gotta get junior out fast. (Ideally I take the kid with me, and if not stay VERY close) But... not every personality is capable of having a frank discussion about personal limitations, risks and mitigations.

---------- Post added June 25th, 2015 at 10:28 PM ----------

And I'll just say it before someone else does, That yes, perhaps having that discussion opens up some more liability, Screw the Lawyers. We gotta be people, helping other people do what we love. Oh yeah, and not die.
(Snarkiness intended)

 

[Frosty]

Hey guys lets agree to disagree here.
You guys are all about your rights and the grandfathers rights.
Me Im worried about MY conscience.
I couldn't live with the concequences of it going wrong.
If you guys could hey-- full ups to ya
Im NOT currently professionally in the dive industry (watch this space)
But I own a Car/Motorcycle dealership.
I HAVE made decisions that have lost me sales of bikes.
One recent one was dad wanting an adult size quad for a kid barely big enough to get on the think let alone strong enough to handle it if things go tits up (awry)
sorry guys but I'll continue to do so as long as Im in this industry. Again I like to sleep at night.

KWS-you did loose me with "the dive shop stopped grandad getting a fill"
What did I miss there?-They refused to do it themselves but surely its a free country and he could go to any other dive shop or breathing air fill place he chose to.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Children have an automatic breath hold response. it's called the Mammalian Dive Reflex. this is why you can teach a baby to swim. We are hardwired to NOT breath underwater.

Thank you for that stunning example of how a (very) little learning may be a dangerous thing. Also, paragraphs: you can look them up at the same time you're googling mammalian dive reflex.

 

[NAM001]

Frosty

The refusal to rent a tank was denying air or provide a fill. You are correct that he could go to another source to get that tank or fill. Which would in the end change nothing in regards to whether the grand dad carried out his plans or not. And this is the whole thing that is out of line. The concern is not with the kid it is with some degree of real of imagined liability. The shop is concerned about being sued, not the kids well being. All the shop did is teach the graddpa that he has to go to another shop and keep his mouth shut and rent a tank to put his kids on a regulator. Instead of fixing the problem, (which probably could not be done) the shop made a challenge/obsticle for the grandpa, who was already head strong to get around and most likely did not change the end result at all. If anything the grandpa may have gave up untill he got the challenge which could have pushed him on to his end goal. It would also appear that by ommision,,, no mention of a child fatality in a pool occured. So the grandpa probably , assuming that he carried things out to the end, employed some prudent precautionary actions in the pool or that he just gave up on is plans all together. At this point no one knows. If only we could know what the grandpa did and our opinions were based on fact and not hypothetical's we may view the grandpa with more more favor or less disgust. These kids could be fish in the water already. Its generally unfair to think of what if's always assume the worst of conditions when we judge others. the sentrence given is often undeserved and does not fit the crime. The shop as presented could have just said that "IT IS THE POICY OF THIS SHOP TO INSURE WITHIN REASON THAT ONLY PROPERLY TRAINED PERSONS USE THE SERVICES OF THE SHOP" That since those under age 14 can not be certified, you can not provide the rental knowing that the end users are not qualified to use the shop services. A simple sign on the wall saying that would remove the nanny appearance. The grandpa would then be arguing with a SOP and not what he considers a nanny good dooer. A closed LDS had such a sign saying basically air fills and life support equipment rental requires a certifation card's of those using the equipment. People for the most part are respectful to what appears to be established policy. But when it comes to nanny's there is little tollerance for them. Though the nanny and the sign may say the same thing, the sign is respected and complied with,where the nanny is challenged because you wll never get a responce arguing with a sign. The responce received from the grandpa as I remember was someting along the line of,, You have no say what I do when I leave you shop. Poor attitude on the part of grandpa? You bet. Did the shop better the situation of the kids. Who knows. All that is resasonably assumed is that grandpa is now bent on getting his way. And the shops position is ,,,, well it wont be with my tank. Good luck kids. What randpa will quickly learn is how to get a tank, with or with out his cert card from a shop, (Psainatball or car suspension use) In the long run the shop may have done the kids more of a disservice by refusing than by renting the tank. But that statement is also based on unfounded maybe's and what ifs and not reality. At minimum it deminished the shops integrety in the eyes of grandpa. Right or wrong its perception. And that too is a two edged sword. One last thing. If there was a real potential threat of liabiliity, then the shop would have the renter sign a understanding of usage document for any rental equipment. Which doesn't appear to be the case.