Another change I'd like to see is that all agencies publish their training standards. Some do, but not all.
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
You are wrong. They do this in Washington state. One shop chain restricts instructors from freelancing or working for other shops, despite the fact that they are contractors. A lawyer told me that this is in violation of Washington state law. I'm not a lawyer and could have misunderstood.
Sweeping changes like that would require legislation. According to wikipedia, there's 198 recreational certification agencies (including tech/cave). You'd have better luck kitten herding than getting all of them to do the same thing without laws to that effect.
That's a whole different type of screwing than what I was thinking. I was thinking of businesses trying to get out of providing benefits such as medical care or unemployment. Someone wanting to work two jobs? Seems like that falls into the "none of your beeswax what I do in my off hours" category. Eh the more I think about that scenario, the less cut and dry it seems. As an employee you likely have proprietary knowledge about that business. Employment contract is likely to stipulate you can't go share that with a competitor... I guess that's where those lawyers come into play.
Both of the dive shops for which I worked used to have everyone as a contractor but changed it to employee, apparently after getting some legal advice about it. Long ago a CPA friend of mine said it is federal law, and he directed me to an official government site detailing the differences, which are part of tax law. There was no question whatsoever that we were acting as employees but being treated as contractors.
You understood the lawyer correctly.
No, your assumption is correct. The complaint is what the plaintiff alleges; the defendants will file an answer responding to each numbered allegation to admit, deny, or say they don't have enough information as to each. They could deny, or deny knowledge of, everything that's necessary to prove negligence, and then the case would have to go to trial. But if they admit enough of the complaint is true, the plaintiffs could file a motion for summary judgment, meaning the judge could simply rule in the plaintiffs' favor without the need for a lengthy trial involving testimony before a jury.
Personally, I think the plaintiffs can/should win even if only those allegations related to the drysuit are true. Actually, I'm not even sure all of those need to be true. I think the instructor, and possibly the shop, would be liable if just the part about her telling Linnea she could dive without an inflator hose was true. However, I think there were enough standards violations here that PADI might be in the clear. Again, I believe if Linnea had done that dive in a wetsuit (or two), she'd still be alive. I am not certain, but I believe the way they went about putting her in a drysuit with no training or equipment check and bringing her out to an essentially bottomless lake violated standards, and but for those violations, Linnea’s death would not have occurred. If I'm wrong about either of those things, then maybe PADI will be found liable. And even if I'm right, it's possible PADI could be found liable if they were aware of such ongoing standards violations and did nothing. But I don't even see that being alleged at this point. I don't disagree with those who would like to see higher standards, but I don't think those would have been necessary or sufficient to prevent this particular death. Better oversight to ensure existing standards were being followed, on the other hand, might possibly have made a difference. But that gets expensive, as others have pointed out.
Standard disclaimer: I'm not a torts lawyer and not licensed in Montana, so don't take any of this as advice.
If you had a contractor repair your roof, what do you think would be the response if you said he or she could not work for anyone else and could only work on your roof in case you needed it repaired in the future?
rmssetc
Contributor
Or, significant changes like that would require educating/motivating the customer to demand that information.
Imagine, if you will, the beachfront road at a tropical destination (or San Miguel in Cozumel). Warm tropical breeze. The smell of ocean in the air. Happy people. Boat drinks with frilly umbrellas. Festive music in the background. Look at all the dive shops, with their "Learn to Dive" posters and signboards and competitive prices. Now, picture the one signboard that advertises:
Why get Certified with our agency? Because we publish the training standards of our instructors, so you know you're getting the best dive training! Ask the shop next door if they will tell you how their instructors were trained. When they refuse to tell you, then come back here to sign up!
