OP
diverdoug1
Contributor
Thanks for the info. guys! DocVikingo, I hope that you won't mind if I shamelessly plagarise your disclaimer.
Physicians on Scubaboard (TS&M, DocVikingo, ..etc)
- Thread starter diverdoug1
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Just a quick review from the attorney standpoint:
In order to create liability, several things must exist:
a. An incident (accident) which lead to an injury;
b. The "proximate cause" of the accident must be related back to someone else;
c. That someone else must have a "duty of care" to the injured party; and
d. That duty of care must have been violated in such a way as to create a/the proximate cause of the incident.
IF you break any one of those chains, IN THEORY there is no liability (common law system). As a practical matter, it should be VERY easy to break the chain in at least one, if not all of the points. Thus the likelihood of being found liable for advice given out on the 'net should be extremely small.
Too often people forget there IS some logic to the tort system -- especially docs who think they have a target painted on their backs (and not without good reason).
In order to create liability, several things must exist:
a. An incident (accident) which lead to an injury;
b. The "proximate cause" of the accident must be related back to someone else;
c. That someone else must have a "duty of care" to the injured party; and
d. That duty of care must have been violated in such a way as to create a/the proximate cause of the incident.
IF you break any one of those chains, IN THEORY there is no liability (common law system). As a practical matter, it should be VERY easy to break the chain in at least one, if not all of the points. Thus the likelihood of being found liable for advice given out on the 'net should be extremely small.
Too often people forget there IS some logic to the tort system -- especially docs who think they have a target painted on their backs (and not without good reason).
- Messages
- 5,721
- Reaction score
- 474
Hi Peter,
Thanks for providing the legal perspective.
The fine logic of the common law system notwithstanding, it should be noted that considerable money and anxiety may be expended in "breaking any one of those chains," even in cases that prima facie appear to be without merit.
It's easy for folks to forget there is some logic to the tort system given the media coverage of the continual flow of seemingly absurd and outrageous personal injury and kindred suits.
Regards,
DocVikingo
Thanks for providing the legal perspective.
The fine logic of the common law system notwithstanding, it should be noted that considerable money and anxiety may be expended in "breaking any one of those chains," even in cases that prima facie appear to be without merit.
It's easy for folks to forget there is some logic to the tort system given the media coverage of the continual flow of seemingly absurd and outrageous personal injury and kindred suits.
Regards,
DocVikingo
Doc -- I know a lot of time and money may be expended in breaking the chain, which is why we all have liability insurance that covers legal costs. BUT, even though the docs don't necessarily believe it (as you know I'm married to one), plaintiff's attorneys also go through a significant screening process to determine whether to take a case -- in no small part because THEY have significant costs too.
It is my belief (based on nothing whatsoever except logic and faith in the system (misplaced though it may be)) that it is the very rare plaintiff's attorney who would attempt to sue a doc for "advice" they gave online in a Scuba forum. Why? Because the chain should be broken so easily and if broken so easily, it would not be worth the time and effort (remember also most people would NOT be in the same jurisdiction so there could be significant cost just from that).
Thus, unless your personal risk avoidance is really high, advise away.
It is my belief (based on nothing whatsoever except logic and faith in the system (misplaced though it may be)) that it is the very rare plaintiff's attorney who would attempt to sue a doc for "advice" they gave online in a Scuba forum. Why? Because the chain should be broken so easily and if broken so easily, it would not be worth the time and effort (remember also most people would NOT be in the same jurisdiction so there could be significant cost just from that).
Thus, unless your personal risk avoidance is really high, advise away.
Similar threads
