Depending on the incident, anything from a strongly worded letter to expulsion from PADI. It all depends on how serious the violation and if they are a repeat offender.
Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park
- Thread starter Jim Lapenta
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
stumbled across an old post of mine...
scubaboard.com
Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death
let me ask...did throwing the instructor under the bus change anything? Nope..sure not. PADI still got sued. There is case law as you said and lawyers are going to chase that money, it is what they do. Should they defend the instructor? No. They should of however come out very strongly why they...
There's a list of things the shop must do for PADI to ordain the shop as 5-star. The list includes things like the shop is only allowed to teach PADI courses and they have to meet certain performance metrics. The list is designed to promote PADI. So it's not as simple as paying PADI and they give you a 5-star sign. It's more like the shop has to pledge loyalty to PADI and actively demonstrate that loyalty.
BUT... there's no special mechanism, outside of the threat of losing the 5-star status, to guarantee that a 5-star shop provides a higher level of quality or service than any other shop.
The more I think about this case, the more I am reminded about my only experience with jury duty. The case was vehicular homicide, and the defendant hired one of the most famous criminal defense attorneys in the state. The whole process was very much an eye opener to me.
In voir dire, we in the jury pool heard every question asked to every potential juror. In every case, the defense attorney went on at length to tell us that they were going to present evidence proving that the blood alcohol test given the defendant had been done improperly and was thus hopelessly contaminated and could not be trusted. He wanted to know if, when they presented that clear and convincing evidence, we would be able to disregard that blood alcohol evidence. With 12 jurors and 5 challenged jurors from each side, we heard that same speech and question 22 times.
In the trial, the nurse who had taken the blood sample testified to the procedures. She testified that when doing a blood alcohol sample, a special kit is used that makes it absolutely impossible to make the error the defense attorney had described in detail 22 times during voir dire. In the cross examination, the assistant defense attorney asked a feeble question that amounted to "Are you sure?" My impression at that moment was that they had the assistant ask the question so that we would not remember the main guy getting refuted, and they did not press the issue because they did not want us to hear more than once how it was impossible.
In the closing argument (1.5 hours), the defense attorney dwelt long and hard on the fact (and it was a fact) that we had heard over and over and over that faulty lab procedures had contaminated the results of the blood alcohol test. Yes, we had heard that over and over again, but it was all from him during voir dire. There was not even an attempt to provide such evidence in the trial itself.
Our trial was unusual because we were the first in which the jurors were allowed to take notes. Ten of us did. The two who did not take notes were completely fooled by this, and they were shocked when the rest of us told them that no such evidence had been presented.
I am seeing a lot of the same here. In the best case scenario, this was an ugly incident, but there are some curious holes in which things are claimed by the attorney but not supported by evidence. If you go to the very beginning of the discussion, for example, you will see me asking questions about missing evidence. For just one example, we keep talking about the instructor/student relationship between the principle characters, but we are never shown any evidence that such a relationship existed on that dive. We are not told what class she was taking on that dive. We are not told what the standards are for the class she was supposedly taking so we can see how the instructor violated them. These seem to be curious omissions. We, of course, so not have the other side. What if they were to claim that she had agreed to start classes later on but was just using this class to get used to dry suit diving and was just buddied another diver, which the instructor's ill-advised FaceBook posts seem to suggest? What evidence is there that any instruction was supposed to take place on that dive?
So I have grown quite skeptical. I am going to be very careful to separate the attorney's claims from the hard evidence, just as we on the jury on my one trial learned to do.
In voir dire, we in the jury pool heard every question asked to every potential juror. In every case, the defense attorney went on at length to tell us that they were going to present evidence proving that the blood alcohol test given the defendant had been done improperly and was thus hopelessly contaminated and could not be trusted. He wanted to know if, when they presented that clear and convincing evidence, we would be able to disregard that blood alcohol evidence. With 12 jurors and 5 challenged jurors from each side, we heard that same speech and question 22 times.
In the trial, the nurse who had taken the blood sample testified to the procedures. She testified that when doing a blood alcohol sample, a special kit is used that makes it absolutely impossible to make the error the defense attorney had described in detail 22 times during voir dire. In the cross examination, the assistant defense attorney asked a feeble question that amounted to "Are you sure?" My impression at that moment was that they had the assistant ask the question so that we would not remember the main guy getting refuted, and they did not press the issue because they did not want us to hear more than once how it was impossible.
In the closing argument (1.5 hours), the defense attorney dwelt long and hard on the fact (and it was a fact) that we had heard over and over and over that faulty lab procedures had contaminated the results of the blood alcohol test. Yes, we had heard that over and over again, but it was all from him during voir dire. There was not even an attempt to provide such evidence in the trial itself.
Our trial was unusual because we were the first in which the jurors were allowed to take notes. Ten of us did. The two who did not take notes were completely fooled by this, and they were shocked when the rest of us told them that no such evidence had been presented.
I am seeing a lot of the same here. In the best case scenario, this was an ugly incident, but there are some curious holes in which things are claimed by the attorney but not supported by evidence. If you go to the very beginning of the discussion, for example, you will see me asking questions about missing evidence. For just one example, we keep talking about the instructor/student relationship between the principle characters, but we are never shown any evidence that such a relationship existed on that dive. We are not told what class she was taking on that dive. We are not told what the standards are for the class she was supposedly taking so we can see how the instructor violated them. These seem to be curious omissions. We, of course, so not have the other side. What if they were to claim that she had agreed to start classes later on but was just using this class to get used to dry suit diving and was just buddied another diver, which the instructor's ill-advised FaceBook posts seem to suggest? What evidence is there that any instruction was supposed to take place on that dive?
So I have grown quite skeptical. I am going to be very careful to separate the attorney's claims from the hard evidence, just as we on the jury on my one trial learned to do.
Recall this? The instructor actually posted that the dead diver was her student
Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park
So let's look at the defense she foolishly presented in another public forum before being advised to stop. Now imagine her expanding on that as she explains to her agency why she is not at fault: "The person who is at fault is the other student, Bob, whom I had allowed to take pictures on a...
I do not at all understand how you are viewing the instructors statements on facebook as suggesting it wasn't a class.
She blamed Bob, who she called her student as being the only person that could have saved the victim.
I think you are the one not checking notes.
Sometimes where there's smoke, there's fire.. Not always, but sometimes.
I had someone try to talk me into taking his friend who had zero diving experience (not even a Try Scuba/DSD experience) out for a dive in Puget Sound.
Now tell me under what conditions is that a good idea? Same conditions for renting equipment for an uncertified diver, agreed?
Now if I have the facts wrong, I'll gladly recant my comment here, but if a dive center does something like this, doesn't it make you wonder what else they might be doing? Then there's this internal memo.
Just what is the purpose of an agency?
So exactly what class was she taking on that dive? Pray be specific.Recall this? The instructor actually posted that the dead diver was her student
Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park
So let's look at the defense she foolishly presented in another public forum before being advised to stop. Now imagine her expanding on that as she explains to her agency why she is not at fault: "The person who is at fault is the other student, Bob, whom I had allowed to take pictures on a...
I do not at all understand how you are viewing the instructors statements on facebook as suggesting it wasn't a class.
She blamed Bob, who she called her student as being the only person that could have saved the victim.
I think you are the one not checking notes.
I am not saying she was not taking a class. I don;t know, because I have no direct evidence one way or the other. I just find it very curious that the attorney's exhaustive list of complaints does not mention it. I also note that the instructor made no effort to do any instruction whatsoever.
So what does this internal memo prove? It shows that PADI learned about the fatality the day after it happened. Are you suggesting they should have sent the memo sooner about the fatality before the death so it could have been prevented?
We know form the reporting on the lawsuit above that the plaintiff is saying that Gull Dive did not inform PADI of the death the year before, and it is questionable that they should have. The person died using gear rented from them. It was not on an instructional dive, and it was not on a Gull-organized dive.
So what does that internal memo prove? Pray be specific.
