Once a DM always liable

[Wildcard]

I think I need to put some thought into DM because once you pass through the Master Scuba Diver cert into the DM, it now lables you as a professional and you better be insured or quit diving. This would not be good because you cannot go back to master Scuba Diver.

Master SCUBA dive is a rec level and has nothing to do with or is even on the path of DM. SUre you can go back, just let your PADI membership expire.

 

[Azza]

I wouldn't worry too much about it.
If something goes wrong, and you are in a position to help or use your DM knowledge, and you help or use that knowledge then how can anyone sue you? If someone bolted and embolised and you didnt even see it, how are you expected to be in two places at once?
As long as you do help in any potential situation your help may be required (which we all would regardless of certification level because thats what any decent human being would do) you should be safe.
I have been a dive professional for 4 years and never worried about it. Then again I don't live in a litigous society...

 

[diverbrian]

Master SCUBA dive is a rec level and has nothing to do with or is even on the path of DM. SUre you can go back, just let your PADI membership expire.

Problem: The proof of the training is there. Just because you no longer are active doesn't mean that you never had the training to be more responsible than a non-professional.

I work for a company that is proof that you don't have to do something wrong to get sued. You just have to have deep enough pockets or one judge willing to hear the case. The court expenses will be enough in many cases to make one settle without doing anything wrong.

 

[papps953]

Generally (but not necessarily always) to have a duty you must be compensated in some way for your services. If you are on the boat, on vacation, and the operator says, "Hey! You're a DM. I could use some help. If you help out on the boat, I'll waive your cost for the dive." Now you have a duty, because you're being compensated to help out on the boat.

Bill

 

[Wildcard]

Have you ever looked into the pockets of a DM???????? No lawyer will go there.

Look folks, just becouse someone screws up dosen't mean it's your fault or will be sued for it. Live your life and do whats right and don't walk around on egg shells.

 

[Jeff Toorish]

This is just a question, not an observation...but, for the attorneys...

Would it be possible for someone on a dive boat who is injured (or more likely a surviving family member) to suggest that because there was an off duty DM on the boat, the victim had an expectation of duty?

I know this is probably getting far more legally technical that anyone intended. And, of course, this would all only be even remotely applicable in the US. But during my days as a journalist, when I covered some pretty wacky trials, that thre were instances where someone had an expectation that was not necessarily apparent at first blush.

Again, just a question.

Safe Diving

Jeff

(I'm not a lawyer, but I played one on TV.)

 

[H2Andy]

like diverbrian says, there is unfortunatley no way to keep someone from suing you

there are *some* built-in safeguards against frivolous cases (such as getting
attorney's fees back) as well as motions to dismiss and summary judgments
which should get rid of frivolous cases early on without much cost .... but...

it's a pain... and the worst hit are the least able to afford it

 

[H2Andy]

Would it be possible for someone on a dive boat who is injured (or more likely a surviving family member) to suggest that because there was an off duty DM on the boat, the victim had an expectation of duty?

keep in mind that these elements go in tandem:

1. duty
2. breach
3. damages

say the diver went in the water with his air off and drowned as a result.

how would a DM sitting in the back have breached his duty and caused damages
to this diver?

in other words, even assuming a duty, the DM must have done something wrong
on top of having the duty... which then caused the damage to the diver...

duty is a legal issue, not a factual issue, so the judge will determine whether
a duty existed in the first place, and this issue would be ripe for a motion to dismiss

 

[Spoon]

in order for someone to establish a claim in neglience, they have to prove
certain elements. there are four classical elements (duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages) but they can be simplified to three: duty, breach, damages.

so, in order for anyone to be found negligent, the other side has to prove
that you owed someone a duty, that you breached that duty, and that
they were damaged as a result.

just being in a boat where someone gets hurt is not enough to
create a duty of care towards that person, even if you are a DM

however, if you are diving with a buddy and they get hurt (you owe
them a duty of care because they are your buddy), the fact that you
are a DM will be used against you to show that you knew better and
should have acted better -- i.e. in proving the second element,
breach.

thanks! that cleared a lot of questions.

 

[*Floater*]

1. owe them a duty of care
2. breach that duty; and
3. cause them damage through your breach

How frequently do bad dive buddies get sued?