Shannon Lewis - The True Story

[kwinter]

If she had not made the dive, she would probably still be alive, Jim's actions would never have been scrutinized and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So what? That's exactly my point. A kid is playing with matches and accidentally sets himself on fire. The doctor treating him at the hospital makes a terrible mistake and ends up killing the kid. Is the doctor relieved of any malpractice claims because the kid shouldn't have been playing with matches? Of course not. Each action must be judged on its own merit. And anyone that doesn't do that is an ignorant fool. The people blaming Jim for things that were not within his control are just as wrong as the ones defending Jim by saying she shouldn't have done the dive. One thing has nothing to do with the other. If there is any evidence that Jim's actions were inappropriate (and I haven't seen any), then that is what should form the basis of any judgement. The fact that Shannon made a bad decision to dive does not incriminate nor exonerate any of his actions.

 

[The Chairman]

kwinter, you're analogy is hopelessly flawed. There was no professional relationship as you depict like a doctor with a patient. Jim wasn't trying to heal or teach her. Jim couldn't fail in his duty as an instructor to her, since she wasn't a student at the time. He was teaching someone else, and his focus was where it should have been: on his student. She was merely a tag along until her sickness prevented her from continuing. She left as she had arrived in the group: of her own accord.

People are looking for the COD, the one vector that caused her demise. No one forced her to dive while sick. Not Jim. Not Dave. Not the people who took her money at Ginnie. She is her own COD, the only known vector in her demise. Not only did she get in the water sick, but she waved her buddies off when she probably needed them, disregarding how sick she actually was and subsequently died alone because of her choices. This is in my mind, an unintentional suicide. With that being the case, then it becomes apparent that those disparaging Jim are either completely deceived by their emotions, or they have another agenda.

 

[boulderjohn]

There is one critical part missing that prevents any sort of decent analysis--we don't really know what happened to her or when it happened. We know that at the beginning of a dive she indicated a problem and left to return to the surface. We know that at some point well after that time, people passing the opening of the ear saw her floating just beneath the deco log. She was still alive at that point, and she lived for a while after that. What happened in between those two events? We don't know. We don't know how much time passed before she became unconscious under water. We don't have any idea. It would even be possible that she successfully exited the ear, went over to the steps, sat down for a while, and then found she could clear her ears. She had driven all the way from Georgia. She had paid her entry fee to Ginnie Springs. She had paid for her gas. She had rented equipment. She had done solo dives there a number of times. She could've thought, "Shoot! I'm not going to waste this opportunity. I'm going to give it another try."

Did that happen? I have no idea. I could invent probably 5-6 other scenarios, each one possible, and each one equally unsupported by any credible evidence. That's because there really isn't any clear evidence of what happened after she went toward he surface and before she was found unconscious.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

kwinter, you're analogy is hopelessly flawed. There was no professional relationship as you depict like a doctor with a patient. Jim wasn't trying to heal or teach her. Jim couldn't fail in his duty as an instructor to her, since she wasn't a student at the time. He was teaching someone else, and his focus was where it should have been: on his student. She was merely a tag along until her sickness prevented her from continuing. She left as she had arrived in the group: of her own accord.

People are looking for the COD, the one vector that caused her demise. No one forced her to dive while sick. Not Jim. Not Dave. Not the people who took her money at Ginnie. She is her own COD, the only known vector in her demise. Not only did she get in the water sick, but she waved her buddies off when she probably needed them, disregarding how sick she actually was and subsequently died alone because of her choices. This is in my mind, an unintentional suicide. With that being the case, then it becomes apparent that those disparaging Jim are either completely deceived by their emotions, or they have another agenda.

It sounds like you feel that a dive buddy has no "duty" to another member of the team? Is duty contingent only upon money changing hands?

Dan Volker seemed to be expressing a similar mindset in that he talked about "tag along" buddies that presumably generated less responsibility than full fledged team members?

If someone asks to dive with me, I would probably say yes or possibly no, but I WOULD feel a sense of duty to ensure their safety during the dive - if I agreed to dive with that person. This "tag along" characterization of a buddy is BS.. unless there is a clear understanding that the third wheel is essentially diving solo... (which would not bother me at all) but if you are my buddy, I feel a strong duty to ensure your survival.

 

[Omisson]

It sounds like you feel that a dive buddy has no "duty" to another member of the team? Is duty contingent only upon money changing hands?

Dan Volker seemed to be expressing a similar mindset in that he talked about "tag along" buddies that presumably generated less responsibility than full fledged team members?

If someone asks to dive with me, I would probably say yes or possibly no, but I WOULD feel a sense of duty to ensure their safety during the dive - if I agreed to dive with that person. This "tag along" characterization of a buddy is BS.. unless there is a clear understanding that the third wheel is essentially diving solo... (which would not bother me at all) but if you are my buddy, I feel a strong duty to ensure your survival.

If a teacher is teaching a class and that is known to the person asking to "tag along" they take their dive subject to the instructors true duty- to their student.

Since it's the students time and money that are what matters - and the instructors attention, focus, and responsibility is to the student- not the "tag along" I can't see how you reach this absurd conclusion.

Maybe if you paid the very substantial fees for cave training you'd appreciate having your instructors full measure of attention....

 

[TONY CHANEY]

dumpsterDiver said just what I was thinking. I have returned to the surface too many times to count for other divers, be it tag alongs, students, buddies etc. I feel that your responsibility increases with your certs. I have read all the court transcrips and have talked to Wayne on more than one occasion. Wayne is one of the most honest men I have ever met. We should have left this death in history and learned from the mistakes made. I'll leave it at that...for right now. Donning my flame proof suit.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

If a teacher is teaching a class and that is known to the person asking to "tag along" they take their dive subject to the instructors true duty- to their student.

Since it's the students time and money that are what matters - and the instructors attention, focus, and responsibility is to the student- not the "tag along" I can't see how you reach this absurd conclusion.

Maybe if you paid the very substantial fees for cave training you'd appreciate having your instructors full measure of attention....

See that's the thing to me... money matters (to you)... my personal responsibility to another human being to whom I have entered into a moral contract with (via a simple agreement that we will buddy together) is not mitigated or reduced by somebody else paying me some money. If an instructor can not provide the necessary level of attention to the "third wheel".. then he should collect money from the third wheel (or not dive with them).. I guess.

 

[danvolker]

It sounds like you feel that a dive buddy has no "duty" to another member of the team? Is duty contingent only upon money changing hands?

Dan Volker seemed to be expressing a similar mindset in that he talked about "tag along" buddies that presumably generated less responsibility than full fledged team members?

If someone asks to dive with me, I would probably say yes or possibly no, but I WOULD feel a sense of duty to ensure their safety during the dive - if I agreed to dive with that person. This "tag along" characterization of a buddy is BS.. unless there is a clear understanding that the third wheel is essentially diving solo... (which would not bother me at all) but if you are my buddy, I feel a strong duty to ensure your survival.

DD. Your assumptions are out of whack....
If you agree to allow a person you don't know, to "act" as a "team member" with you and another good diver that you DO know can handle anything.....and then you find this new team member, just does not have the nerve, the strength, and the skill to do some tough dives you want to do....then what I am saying is that this guy should never have been told that they could be a "team member" with you.
They could be endangering themself and you and your real team mate by their failings....there are huge numbers of poor divers, that think they are tech guys. To be on your team, you have to KNOW.

I don't care what training agency someone came from, if I and Bill are about to do what we think is a perilous dive....anyone we allow on our team will be someone that we dove with many times before, and this will be a person that we really have some good ideas about related to what they will do in any situation--and they will know what we will do.

A tag along --a new person you have not dived with, is an unknown quantity. You can do a recreational dive with them--something you could do solo...but you can not do a potentially dangerous dive that requires a team to do it right.

Everyone is going to have level of dive challenge that they can accept an insta-buddy on ( tag along)....and as the challenge level of the dive grows, at some point, each will be at a point where they can not just accept anyone to be a buddy or team member, unless this person already has lots of time with them.

It is not at all about the responsibility being less for a person you don't know well....not for any typical failure a buddy is going to help with...You need to know what this diver can do, to have any clue to the responsibility of letting them dive with you on a seriously dangerous dive....You need to know, "what is the worst that can happen with this new guy, on this dive?"....

On a separate level, if you are diving with your son, and the two of you feel compelled to penetrate deep inside some slightly deep wreck like the Ande..... and the **** hits the fan.....you WOULD absolutely risk your life for your son...or any other "real" team mate. If you are not willing to ABSOLUTELY risk your life to save a buddy, they are not your team mate.

In the post you are referencing, the girl was NOT a team member....and she was not planned in as a buddy. If she thought she was buddied to one of the other two divers, she should have expected them to be diving with her. Since she was just a tag along, and not a buddy, she had no expectation that either diver would ascend with her to the surface.
And....even a real buddy, or a team mate, could wave a team mate up to the surface from 20 feet deep, in a swimming pool like scenario, and have every expectation that this is as safe as sending your friend from the living room to the kitchen in your house.....though....this is also because if it really IS a real buddy, or a real team mate, you KNOW what this person can handle, and what to expect from them in any situation. If it was a gas switching scenario, part of a tech dive, then no way--watching switches and watching for fox trumps the swimming pool conditions. Again, this was the beginning of the dive, depth was novice level, and to go up with her would be nanny diving. There are thousands of divers a year that can't equalize on charter boats, and head back up from 20 feet deep--and the groups keep on going....

 

[kwinter]

It's not about money, and it's not about a contractual obligation like teaching. But there is a duty or obligation that comes with diving together. Not just a moral one, but a legal one as well. Good Samaritan laws only protect the Samaritan if his actions were "reasonable" based on his qualifications. Any rescue-trained individual has to act in accordance with his training or he can be held legally liable to that standard.
But we do not disagree about Jim's actions. He did what was reasonably expected and therefore acted appropriately and should not be held liable. But Shannon's actions in diving have absolutely nothing to do with mitigating any liability. She could have been perfectly healthy or at death's door. It shouldn't make a difference in judging the actions of a compatriot or buddy. Abandon her and you're liable. See her to safety (the deco log) and get her ok and you've done everything that should be expected.


iPhone. iTypo. iApologize.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

The discussion is expanding into several different themes. It is more interesting now. The idea of reduced responsibility for the "third wheel" (who presumably participated in a pre-dive briefing) is rather foreign to me.

However, I said this before and I should repeat it... I find no failure or breach of duty because the instructor (or buddy) did not accompany the diver to the surface. I have done that many times myself and I don't feel it is an ethical breach of duty to waive bye bye in certain situations.

In fact in this video, I waive my 16-yr old son bye bye to ascend solo from a depth of what looks like 80 feet (with the wreck deeper). Skip to 5:55. Certainly watching a cave diver ascend to a log at 20 feet is less aggressive than allowing your son to ascend from 80 (and after he leaves I turn around and go under the wreck at 130 ft). My criticism is focused precisely on some of the poster's attitude toward the second class citizen status of a non paying dive partner.

[video=youtube;QK7AugWOdSo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK7AugWOdSo[/video]