Sotis vs. IANTD

[tbone1004]

the accident report also asks for all dives in the 24 hours prior, yet only the dives of the day of the accident were listed. yet it was their second day of diving

an IANTD instructor confirmed no signature or date box on the form, but has to be completed within 24 hours

 

[cerich]

then there is this
Filmmaker Rob Stewart's family files wrongful death lawsuit

versus paragraph 27-29 of the Sotis versus IANTD lawsuit.

I suspect that paragraph 28 was written to parse as much as possible to make it plausible that the facebook post was an accurate statement.

 

[cerich]

an IANTD instructor confirmed no signature or date box on the form, but has to be completed within 24 hours

oversight or deliberate loophole? Either way I would think it kills the legal validity of the document

 

[tbone1004]

oversight or deliberate loophole? Either way I would think it kills the legal validity of the document

either way your plan of attack would still work since the lawsuit covers the relevant information and is definitely legally valid. Question now is whether or not the ego's at IANTD will allow them to admit they were wrong by not following procedure and fix it or hold their ground with the outlook looking very similar to the NACD...

 

[cerich]

either way your plan of attack would still work since the lawsuit covers the relevant information and is definitely legally valid

if IANTD reinstates Sotis in writing their lawyer takes that to judge with a motion to dismiss. As the only relief asked for by Sotis in the lawsuit is to be reinstated then the judge will dismiss the case. Then IANTD is free to start a properly done QA process following their stated policy and do actions that they feel are justified.

There is no double jeopardy protection in civil actions. When Double Jeopardy Protection Applies - FindLaw

relevant part

"
Double Jeopardy Only Applies to Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the right against double jeopardy precludes only subsequent criminal proceedings. It does not preclude subsequent civil proceedings or administrative proceedings (e.g., a license revocation hearing) against a person who has already been prosecuted for the same act or omission, even if that person is fined in the later civil or administrative proceeding. Nor is prosecution barred by double jeopardy if it is preceded by a final civil or administrative determination on the same issue."

Pretty darn clear IMHO

 

[tbone1004]

if IANTD reinstates Sotis in writing their lawyer takes that to judge with a motion to dismiss. As the only relief asked for by Sotis in the lawsuit is to be reinstated then the judge will dismiss the case. Then IANTD is free to start a properly done QA process following their stated policy and do actions that they feel are justified.

There is no double jeopardy protection in civil actions.

like our phone call yesterday, I think it's brilliant. What it requires though is that Tom and Mark admit that they botched the process in the first place and I'm not entirely convinced they will do that....

 

[cerich]

like our phone call yesterday, I think it's brilliant. What it requires though is that Tom and Mark admit that they botched the process in the first place and I'm not entirely convinced they will do that....

that's on them, this case should and could be over by the end of the week.

 

[cerich]

If IANTD is unsure in their own minds that a properly done QA following their policy will NOT end up in the suspension/expulsion of Sotis from IANTD then they may be best served to let this play out. Because if they bring him back and do a proper QA process and Sotis is cleared that opens the door to their earlier "improper" actions as establishing damages that are further actionable.

I would think if the proper QA process leads to expulsion there may still be an argument for damages but would be much weaker.

 

[luscioman]

With this one Mr Sotis now has 4 active suits in Broward County.

 

[boulderjohn]

if IANTD reinstates Sotis in writing their lawyer takes that to judge with a motion to dismiss. As the only relief asked for by Sotis in the lawsuit is to be reinstated then the judge will dismiss the case. Then IANTD is free to start a properly done QA process following their stated policy and do actions that they feel are justified.

There is no double jeopardy protection in civil actions. When Double Jeopardy Protection Applies - FindLaw

relevant part

"
Double Jeopardy Only Applies to Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the right against double jeopardy precludes only subsequent criminal proceedings. It does not preclude subsequent civil proceedings or administrative proceedings (e.g., a license revocation hearing) against a person who has already been prosecuted for the same act or omission, even if that person is fined in the later civil or administrative proceeding. Nor is prosecution barred by double jeopardy if it is preceded by a final civil or administrative determination on the same issue."

Pretty darn clear IMHO

I believe in a civil case that is settled, prejudice can be attached, meaning the matter cannot be refiled. I was in an accident a few years ago. I sued, and the other party's insurance offered a settlement. I accepted, but in accepting I had to sign a statement saying I would not file again. Similarly, I know of a scuba death case that was settled "with prejudice," meaning that the plaintiff could not file again in that matter.

I am not remotely an attorney.