Scuba "Buddy" Release form - Has anyone come across one?

[chrisch]

In the UK any such release is worthless as you cannot sign away your right to sue for negligence in case of injury or death. I do not know about US law.

To sue for personal injury requires a demonstration of negligence. So for a buddy to be negligent would require them to fail to show the care expected of a reasonable person. Since "reasonable" is open to interpretation the lawyers can argue out whether or not negligence has occured.

This is why I refuse to dive with anyone with a pony - they demonstrate they don't have to be near me as a backup gas source. If you don't care about me then I don't care about you - as tarponchik correctly suggests; that is two solo divers. I am happy to dive solo and if doing so I do not care what you want to look at or where you want to go, so let's not pretend.

Now we are both diving solo we don't need to indemnify each other. Or worry that our insurance will find fault with our actions and not pay out

 

[-JD-]

@chrisch or consider that the diver using the pony may actually have thought through scenarios where things go upside down and has made choices to maximize safety - you know, the type of diver who might make an effective buddy rather than just a maybe-nearish gas source. Just saying a pony doesn't always mean Piss Off ....

 

[Chavodel8en]

In the abstract, it seem reasonable. I would not expect any damages to me to happen from my buddies negligence. Im responsible for myself, so I dont plan on suing a buddy.

In practice, I may sign an operator's waiver form bc if I dont, I cant dive. Im not taking the time to read or sign a buddy's form (and not be entirely sure what Im signing. I'll just find another buddy.

 

[boulderjohn]

We just had a big thread on buddy (including instabuddy) liability in diving. One person insisted over and over that it was a big issue, but when pushed to show that it happens a lot (in the USA, at least), the best he could do was a paper written by an attorney who seemed to think it should be an issue but was surprised to find that it wasn't. That attorney studied (and gave summaries of) case law, showing there is really no history of any diver being held liable for a problem with a buddy. The law seems to indicate that to be held liable, you would have to do something outside the realm of normal diving to cause the accident to be held liable. If something that gross were to happen, then a liability waiver would do you no good, either.

The one exception seems to me in Malta, where in recent years the courts have tried to find buddies criminally liable for actions far beyond their control, but those cases were finally tossed. In those cases, a liability waiver would have been worthless.

 

[JohnN]

I trust instabuddies so much I carry a pony. If someone asked me to sign, I would walk away, laughing

+1

 

[clownfishsydney]

The one exception seems to me in Malta, where in recent years the courts have tried to find buddies criminally liable for actions far beyond their control, but those cases were finally tossed. In those cases, a liability waiver would have been worthless.

John,

Remember that Gabe Watson was charged with manslaughter for the death of his wife Tina in 2003 on the wreck of the SS Yongala off Townsville, Queensland, Australia. He ended up pleading guilty (which he should not have done) and served 18 months in gaol before been deported back to the USA.

This basically was a conviction based on the fact that he did not save Tina. The law that he was convicted under no longer exists and was only valid in Queensland and no other state or territory of Australia.

 

[boulderjohn]

John,

Remember that Gabe Watson was charged with manslaughter for the death of his wife Tina in 2003 on the wreck of the SS Yongala off Townsville, Queensland, Australia. He ended up pleading guilty (which he should not have done) and served 18 months in gaol before been deported back to the USA.

This basically was a conviction based on the fact that he did not save Tina. The law that he was convicted under no longer exists and was only valid in Queensland and no other state or territory of Australia.

I do remember that case. I also remembered that the law had been changed, so there was no point in mentioning it.

 

[tarponchik]

John,

Remember that Gabe Watson was charged with manslaughter for the death of his wife Tina in 2003 on the wreck of the SS Yongala off Townsville, Queensland, Australia. He ended up pleading guilty (which he should not have done) and served 18 months in gaol before been deported back to the USA.

This basically was a conviction based on the fact that he did not save Tina. The law that he was convicted under no longer exists and was only valid in Queensland and no other state or territory of Australia.

Reminds me of the Yamashita case when this Japanese general was hanged after the war not for what he had done, but for what he didn't do, even though he could not do much because he had lost communication with and control of most of his troops. In effect, Yamashita was sentenced solely for being C-in-C. In the same way, Watson was punished for being a buddy.

(Of course, diving Yongala with just 5 dives logged in was not a brilliant idea. I won't let anyone there with less than 50)

 

[chrisch]

We just had a big thread on buddy (including instabuddy) liability in diving. One person insisted over and over that it was a big issue, but when pushed to show that it happens a lot (in the USA, at least), the best he could do was a paper written by an attorney who seemed to think it should be an issue but was surprised to find that it wasn't. That attorney studied (and gave summaries of) case law, showing there is really no history of any diver being held liable for a problem with a buddy. The law seems to indicate that to be held liable, you would have to do something outside the realm of normal diving to cause the accident to be held liable. If something that gross were to happen, then a liability waiver would do you no good, either.

That is interesting - thanks for posting. That is my understanding of UK law also.

The US training agencies all have release forms for instructors that they ask you to sign for training but under UK law you cannot sign away your right to sue an instructor that drowns you. Basically the form is worthless. (Something that I like to point out when I sign it)

 

[Edward3c]

That is interesting - thanks for posting. That is my understanding of UK law also.

The US training agencies all have release forms for instructors that they ask you to sign for training but under UK law you cannot sign away your right to sue an instructor that drowns you. Basically the form is worthless. (Something that I like to point out when I sign it)

And the few times an instructor or operater has tried to use one in their defence has been used against them by the Courts.