Suit filed for Carbon Monoxide fatality - Washington state

[boulderjohn]

SSI has nothing to do with anything unless this was an SSI class.

Apparently that does not matter these days. In the landmark case PADI lost, the only connection they had to the case was that the DMs who screwed up were certified by them. There was no class going on. I don't even think the DMs who screwed up were being paid for their services, although I could be wrong. If anyone involved in the situation had SSI certification, that would put SSI in the same position PADI was in.

 

[Wookie]

Well, as has been said many times, you can sue anyone for anything. Hopefully SSI does not boot these divemasters to protect themselves.

 

[boulderjohn]

Well, as has been said many times, you can sue anyone for anything.

But if it is something ridiculous, you usually don't win. This case was ridiculous, and they won. That is why all the liability waivers (etc.) have been rewritten, including SSI's. It would be interesting to see if they were using new waivers with the language asserting that the dive operation's employees are not agents of SSI.

 

[Peter Guy]

As it turns out, there is a recent Washington case which discusses Washington's "Duty to Rescue" rules. From my reading, I'd still find in favor of the charter operator -- there was no duty to rescue -- but that defense is less robust than I would have guessed. OTOH, there might well have been a "duty to rescue" on the part of the trip organizer/leader under Washington law.

Of interest, perhaps, to all is that the common law (and probably the standard throughout the US) is that once you START to aid, you must act within reason and then NOT do anything that enhances the chance of harm.

Wookie -- I certainly don't know what it means to be an "inspected" boat but the Sampan takes more than 6 passengers (i.e., it is NOT a 6-pack) so my guess is that it is "inspected.". In addition, it would certainly have been operating in the federally navigable waters of Puget Sound.

 

[flots am]

As it turns out, there is a recent Washington case which discusses Washington's "Duty to Rescue" rules. From my reading, I'd still find in favor of the charter operator -- there was no duty to rescue -- . . .

I don't get it. Who would just sit on the boat while someone drowned, regardless of which little piece of plastic was in their wallet or if they were or were not "ready to get in the water"? It might be cold, but it's not immediately fatal.

Regardless of the legal environment, if they were aware the guy was in trouble and did nothing, it was a really dick move.

flots.

 

[Wookie]

Wookie -- I certainly don't know what it means to be an "inspected" boat but the Sampan takes more than 6 passengers (i.e., it is NOT a 6-pack) so my guess is that it is "inspected.". In addition, it would certainly have been operating in the federally navigable waters of Puget Sound.

More then 6 is an inspected vessel. State waters are anything within 3 miles of land in Washington state, but I don't know the rules in Puget Sound, I know the Straights of Juan de Fuca have special navigational rules, I don't know about territorial rules.

It would be interesting to know if this suit was filed in federal district court, or state court.

 

[Doomnova]

I don't get it. Who would just sit on the boat while someone drowned, regardless of which little piece of plastic was in their wallet or if they were or were not "ready to get in the water"? It might be cold, but it's not immediately fatal.

Regardless of the legal environment, if they were aware the guy was in trouble and did nothing, it was a really dick move.

flots.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything but...

So the question with the gear issues raises how far was the person from the boat. What were the currents like. There are several values that would make me very worried about hopping in to what amounts to 46-50f water with a distressed diver that could easily take 2-3 min to get under control or more(if you think your a strong person bath tub with water at those temps and tell me how well you handle it, a leaking dryglove is annoying and cold but its nothing compared to full immersion). Considering distance they had drifted from said boat or what the currents are like. "Encouragement" could have been to try and get them to move closer to the boat. The question should be asked are we looking at high currents that could easily result in more victims.

I'm not saying they should not have done anything but there is a question of how much do we not know about the conditions of the incident. Also the states has a bit of a "I'll sue you for anything I possibly can attitude".

Also bad air fills could be argued that 2 parties are at fault. The dive shop for not checking their fills and the individual for not checking their tank fills. The charter is a glorified taxi. Also the person looks to be a certified diver taking some sort of class though what course was not specified so they should have remembered their training.

As I said there are many details missing on 3 year old case....I have to question why it took so long to come to a head.

 

[KevinNM]

Also bad air fills could be argued that 2 parties are at fault. The dive shop for not checking their fills and the individual for not checking their tank fills.

When you gas up your car, do you send a sample of the gas to a lab to verify that it isn't contaminated with diesel or nitromethane before using it? Before you give any milk you buy at the grocery store to your kids do you test for toxic levels of insecticides and do a bacteria culture to verify that it was properly pasteurized? Should you be expected to do this?

 

[DandyDon]

When you gas up your car, do you send a sample of the gas to a lab to verify that it isn't contaminated with diesel or nitromethane before using it? Before you give any milk you buy at the grocery store to your kids do you test for toxic levels of insecticides and do a bacteria culture to verify that it was properly pasteurized? Should you be expected to do this?

If CO tainted tank air was that rare, it'd be different. One of the leading labs that tests scuba tank samples submitted found that 3% were contaminated. And you still don't want tank testing...??

 

[Doomnova]

Nice starwman. I'm not generally a diplomatic person(I'm really quite blunt) so I'll try to be. Neither of those are likely to kill you. Conversely CO in your tank can and quite easily will. My Instructor had gotten 2 CO hits and now with their shop has a CO checker they use and you can also borrow to check your tanks with. Honestly I take my diving seriously you are entering an IDLH environment where one screw up could easily be your last. I learned that on about my 40th dive since then I check my gear like a hawk.
I feel bad for the families loss but at the same time running around with an "I'll sue everyone I can" attitude and hope something sticks does not help unless there is provable gross negligence. But ultimately we do not have enough information as I said in my last post to say much of anything.