Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park

[Omisson]

a) it wasn't supposed to be a deep dive. The instructor chose an inappropriate site.
b) it wasn't supposed to be a night dive, and it technically wasn't night yet. You're asking a lot of the victim to make that leap.
c) her instructor told her to get the drysuit and told her it was safe to dive.
d) ice? What ice?
e) yes, it was supposed to be her AOW course, which is why she should have been able to expect to go beyond her previous limits while being watched over and guided.
f) she was supposed to know the viz before she got in?

so if you bothered to read either the complaint or the facts:

a) the bottom was over 120 feet in the area- dive 2 of AOW is a Deep dive- this was her SECOND dive in AOW.
b) it was conducted after sun was setting- definition of night dive is twighlight (sundown) and after in standards I cited
c) if I told you diving to 150 was safe- knowing the recreational limit was 120-130 - would you accept that? If your BCD didn’t hold air and I said it’s safe to use it on a dive, would you accept that?
d) the weather conditions: snow on ground, 23 degrees Fahrenheit - Montana lake at elevation
e) apparently neither she nor you actually reviewed the AOW elearning materials…
f) she should have anticipated it given the viz the day before, when she did her FIRST dive there….


Again: I am NOT looking to exonerate the instructor or dive shop- IMHO they were grossly, and likely, criminally negligent. I am saying though-that the student had numerous clues that things weren’t right and she ignored those and her training to her peril.

moreover PADI it’s standards and training had ZERO to do with this- had the shop and instructor followed standards or the student stuck to her training- this would not have happened.


so basically you’ve proved you know zero about either PADI OW or AOW standards, their training materials, or the facts of this case, and wasted the time for me to post all the obvious screen shots to prove that…. Well done!

good night genius…

 

[Jim Lapenta]

There seems to be a thread of hope here, that if PADI is found liable, they would attempt to increase their instructor quality to prevent similar cases in the future.

But we all know that some fair number of SCUBA fatalities are from unknown/unforeseen medical issues. No matter how gold-plated an instructor PADI (or anyone else) produces, they can't prevent a heart attack, and the risk of lawsuits that brings.

So wouldn't that just drive PADI to attempt to distance themselves even further from instructors? Remove anything that even hints at a relationship with the instructors, remove all claims of quality control, simply sell the training material and tell the courts "we're just a textbook publisher".

I just have a hard time seeing agencies getting tasked with assuming more liability, and attempting to fix that through quality control that wouldn't actually fully remove the liability.

If you go back to the Tuvell case, you can read testimony from PADI through Al Hornsby that in essence justified not changing standards for Discovery type intros because there had only been a few deaths relative to the number of programs. Seemingly saying, an unacceptable number of deaths had not yet been reached. Even though other agencies and their preferred insurance carriers decided that ratios did need to be reduced for these programs.
Standards will not change, nor will guidelines issued by the RSTC and WRSTC, until someone decides that the deaths are at an unacceptable rate. It seems that hasn't been reached yet.

 

[boulderjohn]

There seems to be a thread of hope here, that if PADI is found liable, they would attempt to increase their instructor quality to prevent similar cases in the future.

But we all know that some fair number of SCUBA fatalities are from unknown/unforeseen medical issues. No matter how gold-plated an instructor PADI (or anyone else) produces, they can't prevent a heart attack, and the risk of lawsuits that brings.

So wouldn't that just drive PADI to attempt to distance themselves even further from instructors? Remove anything that even hints at a relationship with the instructors, remove all claims of quality control, simply sell the training material and tell the courts "we're just a textbook publisher".

I just have a hard time seeing agencies getting tasked with assuming more liability, and attempting to fix that through quality control that wouldn't actually fully remove the liability.

I made this argument earlier in the thread.

• It is impossible for any agency to guarantee that every instructor will act perfectly on every instance. In the case of this incident, the instructor performed well enough to pass her certification exam, and she would probably do even better if retested. With no one watching and under the supervision of her dive shop, though, she was totally incompetent, ignoring standards she would have carefully followed under observation.
• Even if the instructor performs perfectly, a fatality can lead to a lawsuit. We have had several threads recently in which instructors were sued for perfectly reasonable efforts to save a diver having a cardiac event.
• The current drive in this and other recent lawsuits is to make the agency automatically responsible for any misstep or alleged misstep of an instructor or divemaster. The obvious reason is to increase the potential payout for the plaintiff. They will get a lot more from an agency than an individual instructor.
• If the precedent is established that an agency will be held automatically liable for all actions of all professionals, the result will have to be that the agencies retreat from any attempt whatsoever to supervise professional conduct. They will have to act the way a college does, providing training through graduation and then doing nothing with the graduates after that.
• As was pointed out elsewhere, there are other organizations that provide continued leadership and supervision of professionals, including the American Medical Association. Once this precedent is established, why would not the same thinking extend to them? Why would they not be automatically guilty on every malpractice case?

 

[Omisson]

If you go back to the Tuvell case, you can read testimony from PADI through Al Hornsby that in essence justified not changing standards for Discovery type intros because there had only been a few deaths relative to the number of programs. Seemingly saying, an unacceptable number of deaths had not yet been reached. Even though other agencies and their preferred insurance carriers decided that ratios did need to be reduced for these programs.
Standards will not change, nor will guidelines issued by the RSTC and WRSTC, until someone decides that the deaths are at an unacceptable rate. It seems that hasn't been reached yet.

Jim,

it’s not that “acceptable deaths” hadn’t been reached. It is a function of statistical analysis. with diving overall Fatality rates of 16.4 deaths per 100,000 persons per year among DAN’s survey of members and 14.4 deaths per 100,000 persons per year the British Sub-Aqua Club (BSAC) members- we find all scuba deaths, REGARDLESS of which training agency, were similar and did not change during 2000–2016. This is comparable with jogging (13 deaths per 100,000 persons per year) and motor vehicle accidents (16 deaths per 100,000 persons per year), and within the range where statistical reduction is unlikely.

So for example…BSAC and ALL NORTH AMERICAN SCUBA AGENCIES COMBINED have the SAME fatality rate…. STATISTICALLY this is very Helpful because it tells us across borders, training, and conditions there is a similar danger factor. The two largest factors are Diver error (45%) and pre-existing physical condition (33%). When they are backed out (88%) that number falls to 3.608 per 100,000- and that is the the same as the 4 deaths per 100,000 for DSD deaths on average. So in other words, the DSD mortality rate is comparable to the raw death rate of pure “unavoidable accidents” in the industry.

I agree any death is tragic- but from a statistical and legal perspective- their really is no “risk” that isn’t inherent in the hazardous activity of scuba diving that could be mitigated.

I know that’s a bit callous- but it’s how we all survive in the world- weighing risk and reward.

Dive Safe!

 

[Wookie]

The obvious reason is to increase the potential payout for the plaintiff. They will get a lot more from an agency than an individual instructor.

That may be the obvious reason, but I suggest you consider an alternative. It shouldn’t be too hard to come up with.

 

[formernuke]

I would say one reason is to increase payout.

 

[Wookie]

I would say one reason is to increase payout.

That’s what John said as well.

Consider another reason.

 

[formernuke]

Ohh I know other reasons, but one and for the attorney the main one is go for the multi billion dollar company

 

[Wookie]

Ohh I know other reasons, but one and for the attorney the main one is go for the multi billion dollar company

Not that attorney.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Ok- I think I explained this before.

doctors go to medical school. Then pass medical license board in a state. Then a specialty board certifies them In a field of medicine (internal medicine, surgery, psychiatry, Opthomology)

if they commit malpractice, is the med school responsible at law? How about state medical board that charges them every year a license that comes with ethics rules and practice guidelines for a fee? How about the specialty board that they pay dues to, and who promulgates manuals in the field of specialization - and can discipline, sanction, or remove then from the board certification?

so should people be able to due the state licensing board? The specialty board? Even if the doctor violated taught “best practices”?
I think not. Yet that is the “agency” argument being made by folks who don’t understand either the legal dynamic or implications of finding this sort of “agency”. At its core, PADI would need to be revenue sharing or directing operations not simply setting standards and providing initial “certification” of instructors - otherwise it’s just like hundreds of other non-agency sorts of certification and standards boards that HAVE NEVER BEEN FOUND LIABLE THROUGH AN AGENCY ARGUMENT at law.

if this liability is found under the PADI type of “agency” it will open a Pandora’s box of litigation in those other boards for their licensure and certification systems.

the law does not exist in a vacuum- there are ripple effects and consequences to any sort of decision like this…far beyond the little pond of scuba diving.

Do state medical boards allow doctors with multiple fatalities continue to practice?

If not, why does PADI allow dive centers/instructors who have done so? Like Seattle Scuba in Seattle that suddenly closed down recently. Home | Seattle Scuba Info. I believe Tareq Saade was also a student of Seattle Scuba (West Seattle diving-accident victim: Award-winning volunteer).

If medical boards allow doctors to continue practicing after a number of deaths, then your point is completely valid and mine is invalid.

However, if medical boards kick out doctors from continuing to practice after committing malpractice, then the reverse is true.

Which is it?