Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death

[Peter Guy]

Dr. Lecter -- as I wrote, I was a criminal defense attorney and no, I didn't have any multi-national clients with in-house counsel. I'll freely admit I don't know how PADI handles litigation -- I was just positing one scenario. IF you know it to be different, great -- please advise.

 

[boulderjohn]

There are a LOT of folks here that have never taught a DSD in real life in a resort situation. But we've established that fact in the first few pages.

I am not quite clear on your point. Are you saying that this incident occurred in a resort situation?

 

[Steve_C]

I am not quite clear on your point. Are you saying that this incident occurred in a resort situation?

He is saying that as part of the general discussion that folks are making comments about DSD in general and these folks have never actually taught in a resort type situation and thus may not be aware of the reality of DSD and the teaching environment in those situations.

 

[boulderjohn]

He is saying that as part of the general discussion that folks are making comments about DSD in general and these folks have never actually taught in a resort type situation and thus may not be aware of the reality of DSD and the teaching environment in those situations.

But this event did not take place in those situations.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

A- Some jurisdictions (many state and most federal courts- FRCP Rule 14 material) have an open/automatic file discovery rule that requires ANY materials that are relevant and in control of the opposing party MUST be turned over- PERIOD. Now in some cases It MAY be turned over with a protective order but- almost always will become evidence at some point and therefore publicly disclosed. This type of record would clearly meet the relevancy and materiality component of any discovery obligation in such a law suit. So I don't see TDI or the online crowd getting this right..

Those obligations in no way require production of privileged/work product documents, though. If the document is as TDI described it, relevant or not it shouldn't have been disclosed without a fight.

B- The court sanctioned the TIME wasted by party for the misleading pleading. They did not sanction the conduct in a punitive way- ie the court did not find the conduct grossly unethical or prejudicial. Again seems many in the peanut gallery don't see the difference. In a multimillion dollar lawsuit a 2000 dollar sanction isn't sending a message - it was a stratagem call.

+1

And if counsel cleared it they need new counsel.

+a lot

---------- Post added November 13th, 2014 at 08:36 PM ----------

Dr. Lecter -- as I wrote, I was a criminal defense attorney and no, I didn't have any multi-national clients with in-house counsel. I'll freely admit I don't know how PADI handles litigation -- I was just positing one scenario. IF you know it to be different, great -- please advise.

I know what PADI is and that it has in-house counsel. No, they're not as sophisticated a client as Goldman or Chase, but they're not being guided through a scary, unfamiliar process by the lawyers they hired to defend the case. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Steve_C]

But this event did not take place in those situations.

True. But as is usual with SB the discussion has ranged more widely and has several different intertwined threads.

 

[Zippsy]

There are a LOT of folks here that have never taught a DSD in real life in a resort situation. But we've established that fact in the first few pages.

I must admit that I have never conducted a DSD in a resort situation. I've done them in pools and off LOBs a fair bit though. So what makes resort situations unique and pertinent to this discussion?

---------- Post added November 14th, 2014 at 01:04 PM ----------

..
However since I think the standards contain a huge logical fallacy: that any single human can give 100% attention to more than one thing. I never do more than 1:1 for "Try SCUBA" and only do it in the shallow end of the pool, never anything in OW for anybody who hasn't already been though the OW class, so this really isn't a personal problem...

But the standards don't contain a huge fallacy. They specifically state that if you can not handle the maximum number of participants, you have to reduce the number. You seem to accept this by saying you will only do 1 on 1. Great, you are meeting standards. Maybe the instructor in this case should have said the same thing. I'm comfortable and able to meet standards with 2 participants, usually by staying in constant contact with both of them. If someone else can handle one or two more, good for them. Just because PADI says there is a maximum number of participants and you take that number, itdoesn't mean you get a free pass on ignoring all the other standards.

And as noted by Omisson, letting Billy bolt to the surface already has you breaking standards. Why multiply your problem by breaking them again by leaving Sam alone too?

 

[Centexbear]

So what's the deal with the 2nd instructor named as a defendant?

where was he and what was he doing?

 

[Rhone Man]

I know what PADI is and that it has in-house counsel. No, they're not as sophisticated a client as Goldman or Chase, but they're not being guided through a scary, unfamiliar process by the lawyers they hired to defend the case. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

I confess that I haven't studied this case in great depth, but I am taking an educated guess that the only reason the claimants are still gunning for the instructor after a settlement with PADI is because he has sufficient PI insurance to make doing that worthwhile. Accordingly, although the instructor is the named defendant, he likely is just a proxy in a fight between the claimants and the insurers. And the insurers will be plentifully stocked with in-house lawyers (although conversely the claimants won't be).

Just sayin'.

 

[Wookie]

I must admit that I have never conducted a DSD in a resort situation. I've done them in pools and off LOBs a fair bit though. So what makes resort situations unique and pertinent to this discussion?

Many resorts (Sandals type all inclusive) offer the resort course as a free benefit, part of the all inclusive package, so the staff does a ton of these a day. Many folks who cater to the cruise ship market also do a ton of these a day. The ratio is now 4:1, it was 8:1 the year I did 8 or 16 a day, 313 days a year.

This instructor might as well have been in a resort. We called it churning and burning. What we don't know is how many bolters he's ever had, how many times he's lost control of his student, how many times things went wrong according to standards and everything was all right. All of the folks who talk about "just reach out and grab him when he bolts" have never made their living doing this. You might have to go through another student to get at the one who is having a panic, causing another panic. You think 4 students all dive close enough to the instructor that he can look in their eyes the whole time and assess the impending bolt? In this instructors case, he had to evaluate 3 students at the same time, the whole time, and how does anyone prevent a bolter anyway?

It's great doing 1:1 DSDs, it's how I took my Step Mom and Dad resort diving in Belize the year I got married. That isn't the reality of resort diving. In resort diving, the van dumps off 12 strangers from the cruise ship. You have 6 hours to get them fitted in gear, 2 hours in the classroom (that you learn to do in an hour and 15 minutes), 1 1/2 hours in the pool, fill their tanks while they eat lunch, load their gear on the boat, take them to a boat ride and for a dive, and get them back to the cruise ship by 3:30. 6 days a week.

Those who would puff their chest out and say that the instructor should be close enough to prevent a bolter at all times don't understand the reality of resort courses.