No idea how they plan to drag SSI into it, but I guess we will find out.
Anyone who has followed recent lawsuits will be able to answer this one. It is part of a new strategy that is (IMO) troubling for the industry.
A few years ago a dive club in California chartered a boat like this one for a three tank dive. The club had two of its members, both DMs by certification, running the trip logistics. They called role after each of the three dives to be sure everyone had gotten back on board. Incredibly, they missed one of the divers after the first dive, and they repeated the mistake after each of the other two dives. The diver was found alive that afternoon by another boat, and he sued. The suit included PADI, which did not have the remotest connection to the incident, because the DMs were PADI certified. The suit's claim was that the DMs were "agents" of PADI and were thus acting under their control. As absurd as that claim may seem, it worked. The jury found PADI liable to the tune of $2 million.
With that precedent in place, PADI has made a number of changes. That includes adding wording to standard liability waivers requiring divers and students to acknowledge that the people with whom they are working are not agents of PADI. I have recently learned that SSI has done the same thing.
This precedent is troubling because if a certifying agency is automatically included in a lawsuit every time a professional screws up, and if that agency is automatically guilty if a jury determines that the individual is guilty I would think that agencies would have to go out of existence. It would be like a medical school being successfully sued for millions of dollars every time one of their graduates commits malpractice.
In a recent lawsuit in which an instructor seriously screwed up, PADI was included again. The language of the claim said that PADI was included because the instructor was an "agent" of PADI. PADI scrambled to get out of that situation. I assume the suit against SSI is for the same reason, and I would expect SSI to do everything it can to get out of it the way PADI did.
They are waiting for Brian Carney to do that for them.
For those who don't understand this reference, Brian Carney of SDI/TDI sent out a letter that was critical of PADI for its actions in that recent lawsuit. He said that his organization will stand by its instructors in such a situation. As a TDI instructor, I am wondering what this means. If I really, really screw up badly and have an obvious losing lawsuit on my hands, and if TDI is sued on the basis that I am an "agent" of TDI, will they really accept that position without fighting it? Will they really sit back and accept a multi-million dollar judgment without fighting it? More importantly, will the fact that they wrote that letter say in effect that we are indeed their agents? Will that prevent them from arguing otherwise?
---------- Post added December 4th, 2014 at 03:31 PM ----------
If a big guy is paniking on the surface, I would be very wary of jumping into 50F water with no thermal protection, no scuba and maybe even no mask or fins. I don't think the success odds for this act would be very good.
I hope I am remembering the same incident to which Frank is referring, and that I am remembering it correctly. I hope he will correct me if I am in error. In the case I was thinking of, there were several findings against the boat and its captain. Not only were the standard procedures not followed, the crew had not been trained to use the standard procedures, and the captain was not in position to supervise the entry procedures and rescue.
If you are a boat in which such a possible situation exists, then you have an obligation to have procedures that will work for that situation. You have to train your crew to use those procedures. If jumping into 50° F water without thermal protection, scuba, mask, and fins is not a smart move, then it sure as heck should not be a part of your standard procedures.
