Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death

[Wookie]

TDI wasn't named in the DeWolf lawsuit, they had no dog in the fight. They have not expelled Mr. Kohler. As far as I know, the relationship between mr Kohler and mr Carney hasn't changed. Would you expect Drew and Mr. Douglass are having beers at OWU?

i think you have a Gross Conceptual Error here, Pete. You are concentrating on the fact that TDI did not defend Kohler. They had nothing to defend him against or for. What you need to be concentrating on is that Richie was not in an instructional position when DeWolf died. In fact, the original certifying instructor was sued in that suit, and that instructors insurance company choose to settle with DeWolf. Getting mad at Carney for not defending Kohler is like being mad at me for not defending Kohler, and I had a lot more dog in that fight than TDI did.

 

[The Chairman]

Frank,

I'm not mad at Carney. I'm not mad at TDI/SDI. Hell, I've chosen them as one of two agencies I teach for. If I had serious concerns about their practices, ethics or safety, I would leave them as I have left one already. However, I'm reading posts that conflict and am trying to understand what's going on, or not going on. It's been suggested that the letter was driven by a need for better standards in regards to safety, yet I can't find any reference to standards and safety in it. It's been suggested to me privately that the letter was intended to force PADI's hand in negotiating the same in the RSTC. If it is, it's probably more about a perceived marketing advantage rather than safety. PADI allows for a 4/1 ratio while SDI only for a 2/1. If I'm a busy shop in a resort destination used to a 4/1, then I'm going to have problems with that. The business as usual aspect is going to make PADI look better, if only from a financial POV. Are SDI's standards better in regards to safety? No doubt about it. Kudos to them for that.

It's my opinion that the market drives safety more than anything. Companies, which include ALL of the agencies, want to increase rather than lose market share. Show an agency how implementing a standard will help their bottom line and they'll gladly implement it. Again, I point to PADI's change in regards to neutral buoyancy. It made economic sense for them to do it, so they did. If they see instructors leaving in droves, which I doubt, they will change their policies to ameliorate that. Same thing with disclosing those incident reports. If it can be shown that they will benefit from not giving them up, then they'll stop that too. The companies that succeed, like PADI and TDI/SDI are the ones that change to market pressures. They remain relevant and their market shares increase often to the detriment of other training agencies. It's my humble opinion that the letter was more about trying to increase market share than anything else. It's muddied the waters more than anything else.

It's my humble opinion that if any agency truly cared about safety, they would get rid of OW CESAs. I've pointed this out before, but they are horrible for the instructor, set a bad example for the student and simply have no meaningful impact on a student's learning how to survive. [/rant]

 

[The Chairman]

See, e.g., HRS 663-1.54. Talk about a whoops by the rec industry.

That's Hawaii. I haven't found anything to condemn Florida's law.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

That's Hawaii. I haven't found anything to condemn Florida's law.

Yes, it is Hawaii and is unrelated to Florida's law. If you'd bothered to quote my full post, that would have been blindingly clear.

The point (since you seem to have missed it) was simply that statutes about negligence waivers can turn out to provide less protection than how negligence waivers were treated at common-law. Because however well-intentioned the legislative language, it offers a chance for a court to interpret it more restrictively than its own precedents. Hawaii's statute is a particularly glaring example.

 

[Scared Silly]

It's my opinion that the market drives safety more than anything.

I am not sure how you are defining the "market" but IMHO it is more often it is the insurance underwriters that drive safety. To whit the requirement that Frank notes about the DSD ratio being 2:1. The underwriters have done their due diligence and decided that ratio to be the safest.

 

[The Chairman]

If you'd bothered to quote my full post, that would have been blindingly clear.

I just re-read the post and found nothing suggesting that it was Hawaii. Perhaps you should read your own post? (#249)

Even more amusing, occasionally such statutes make it worse than how the common law approach worked because they're worded...inartfully. See, e.g., HRS 663-1.54. Talk about a whoops by the rec industry.

I didn't "miss" your point, even though I did not comment to it. There's nothing in my post suggesting that doing harm isn't possible, only that in this specific instance, Florida's law, I could not find any back lash from it.

Just because you think or intended it, doesn't clarify it for the rest of us. Divination went out with the Middle Ages. In addition, jumping to conclusions to try to brow beat a poster just seems petty. It's not my fault you weren't clear.

 

[JohnN]

I am not sure how you are defining the "market" but IMHO it is more often it is the insurance underwriters that drive safety. To whit the requirement that Frank notes about the DSD ratio being 2:1. The underwriters have done their due diligence and decided that ratio to be the safest.

Not quite, the underwriters are trying to optimize the profits of their company: revenue (insurance premiums) - expenses (claims paid out). Price the policy too high (or too restrictive) and revenue drops, make the claim too liberal and expenses are too high.

 

[Zippsy]

I think some underwriters determined 2:1 is most profitable for their company. Surely they would believe that 1:1 or 1:2 or 1:3 is safer, no?

 

[The Chairman]

Not quite, the underwriters are trying to optimize the profits of their company: revenue (insurance premiums) - expenses (claims paid out). Price the policy too high (or too restrictive) and revenue drops, make the claim too liberal and expenses are too high.

Great point. Every injury/death increases the price of insurance. At this point, instructors are screaming about the price of insurance and a number of them have found that they cannot justify continuing to teach.

 

[markmud]

Hello All,

I was not aware of Richie Kohler being named as a defendant in a civil case until the topic was broached on this thread. I was curious.

Just in case I am not the only one who did not know, here is more about the story:
Send Lawyers Guns & Money

I trust John Chatterton's account to be reliable.

markm