Question re Death This Week in SoCal ...

[Peter Guy]

JC wrote

my understanding is that you cannot contract out negligence. Documentation be damned when it comes to negligent actions - waivers don't count for anything.
Plus, a waiver of the deceased cannot waive the rights of an heir.

While that MAY be the law in the UK (but I'm quite sure it is not), these two statements are definitely incorrect with regards to the US. There is plenty of case law which permits the "contracting out" of negligence in activities such as Scuba -- i.e., inherently dangerous activities. In addition, heirs ARE bound by the waivers signed by the actor (as are insurance companies!). (Google Boyce v. West, a Washington case -- also, for the standard of normal Scuba practice, one might want to Google Rasmussen vs. Bendotti where the Court found that "buddy diving" was the industry standard and thus would create a rationale for liability IF this boat operator knowingly permitted solo diving in this situation. [Disclaimer -- I am still NOT saying the operator did anything other than maintain the highest standard of care in this situation and yes, I have dived off this boat and will do so again whenever I can.])

Hoo wrote

It still amazes me that we have a tort system where you can get rich from being injured due to your own stupidity (but not as rich as your lawyer gets).

While I must say that I agree in part with this statement and sentiment, I really do find it offensive. If we didn't have our tort system, with what would you replace it? Do you want the government (at any level) to identify, regulate and enforce "reasonable actions" so as to prevent, or remedy, injuries? Or do you just want people to be able to do anything they want and say "Too bad, you shouldn't have done this, or been there, or operated this machine -- you did it yourself" when they get injured through someone else's negligence?

 

[merxlin]

I think the issue most of us have with these lawsuits is what is considered "negligent". Do divers dive solo? Are they instructed not to? Do they take it upon themselves to do so? What right does the dive boat operator have to not allow them to dive solo since there are no regulations against it? Do you violate someones rights by not allowing them to dive solo? Is number of dives a good indication of diving ability? How does a dive op determine your suitability to dive? Does having a buddy certify to your safety? In my opinion, in this case unless the dive op knew something that would prohibit this diver from diving solo safely (if he indeed was diving solo), there is no negligence.

I hope the bigger point here is that Scuba is a dangerous sport. Risk can be minimized but not eliminated. Lets be careful out there.

 

[fnfalman]

When you get on the boat, you sign a liability waiver saying that you're certified and you're responsible for your safety underwater. The divemaster checks your c-card. End of story.

We're all big boys and big girls here.

I paid the boat for its ferry service, air refill, food and divemaster's assistance if I'm in trouble at the surface. I didn't pay the boat owner/captain/divemaster to be my asswiping babysitter. Of course, I can always pay extra for the boat's divemaster to be my buddy as well, that's an option that any diver can take.

PS Industry standard practice isn't official regulations & policies.

 

[all4scuba05]

Here in the U.S....
1-Is there a law that states that we MUST be certified prior to grabbing scuba eqiupment and entering the ocean?

2-Is there a law stating that we MUST have "Solo Certs" prior to solo diving in the ocean?




Oooops...just noticed post 42

 

[PToone]

As someone stated, the gates fly open and everyone jumps off the boat in California Dive Operations. Thats not a bad thing, it just places responsibility on who is ultimately responsible...the diver him/herself.

RIP, hopefully we can all learn/remind ourselves of an important lesson. Dive with a buddy.

 

[Thalassamania]

...
PS Industry standard practice isn't official regulations & policies.

Maybe not, but it is what defines duty, negligence, and liability.

 

[fnfalman]

Maybe not, but it is what defines duty, negligence, and liability.

That's just a criterion, it isn't the sole one. The lawyers will have to duke it out over industry non-regulated standard practices vs. signed liability waiver forms.

 

[Franklyhooked]

...
I hope the bigger point here is that Scuba is a dangerous sport. Risk can be minimized but not eliminated. Lets be careful out there.

Thanks for your comment. I consider myself a beginning diver (1 year and about 40 dives) and have followed this thread and another about a death in our area (Pacific NW). Both make me realize the importance of training, practice, redundancy and diving within my limits and with a buddy I know and trust.

 

[fnfalman]

Thanks for your comment. I consider myself a beginning diver (1 year and about 40 dives) and have followed this thread and another about a death in our area (Pacific NW). Both make me realize the importance of training, practice, redundancy and diving within my limits and with a buddy I know and trust.

Yes, agree totally. However, at the same time, we're all adults and we should be able to make our own decisions and take whatever risks we deem acceptable to us. It's called freedom of choice.

If I were to want to go solo, trained and equipped properly or not, and if there are no laws against it, then who's the boat captain or dive master to say no? If they have standing policies on their boat, that's one thing (and take the risk of losing all the businesses from solo divers and divers who don't want babysitters).

On the other hand, do we need to have the various countries' governments making more mommy/nanny/babysitter laws to rule our lives by?

That's why we get trained and get certified. The Open Water C-Card isn't the be-all-end-all, but the course definitely covers the hazard of solo diving among other hazards. And if the "adult" certified diver were divert from his or her training, then that's on that individual's head.

PS I've been on the Spectre boat plenty of times and they ran a safe boating operation. Their divemaster even fished me out of the water one time when my BC malfunctioned and gotten full of water. If the boat didn't leave me floating in the water and left for port or run aground or floundered, as far as I'm concerned, the boat company did its job.

 

[AzAtty]

JC wrote While that MAY be the law in the UK (but I'm quite sure it is not), these two statements are definitely incorrect with regards to the US.

Surprisingly, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (U.K.) does invalidate waivers of negligence that results in personal injury or death. Waivers of negligence resulting in something other than personal injury or death are subject to a "reasonableness" inquiry. But the bad news for the plaintiff's bar is that the U.K. still does not allow contingent fees, and the loser pays the winner's fees.