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

[boulderjohn]

I agree with the first part, but I'm not sure about the second. In other words, the passive participant counts against the Instructor for supervision ratios, (presumably because of the possibility of distraction) but is there a duty to supervise?

What would be the purpose of having the added diver be a part of the class ratio if there was not a presumption of duty?

 

[KevinNM]

The plaintiff's team does not need any help from this thread. The defense, on the other hand, should be learning what kind of strategies will not work in their defense.

The need very gullible people on the jury, all of who they can blackmail...

At several points in this thread, people commented that the inflator valve on the Brooks drysuit was not compatible with the inflator hose used for BCD inflation. I believe someone specifically said the suit used a Poseidon inflator. This part of the filing says the suit used a SiTech inflator, which does use an inflator compatible with a BCD inflator, provided that the BCD does not use an integrated alternate air source.

136. Brooks dry suits are manufactured with Si-Tech inflator valves, which are equipped with either International or CEJN connectors, depending on which connector is specified by the customer. Brooks then provides an inflator hose with the appropriate QD connector to the customer.​

Brooks drysuits now advertise that they use both kinds of inflators, and the wording on their website suggests they stopped using Poseidons for a time.

It apparently was a used drysuit. Apparently provided by the instructor. Not sure if the reg set was provided by the instructor too.

 

[Ayisha]

All right, this was a big discovery for me that I had somehow missed on my first reading. I believe this will be a surprise for most people. This is on page 43:

193. Although Linnea was wearing a dry suit in the water, she was not qualified to take part in the dry suit diving portion of the training. Linnea was not a certified or qualified dry suit diver, she had no experience diving in deep water, and she was incapable of assessing risk or making an informed decision to take part in that dive. Despite this, the Gull Dive Defendants made no effort to ensure that Linnea was appropriately certified to participate in this dive, which was a noninstructional dive for her.
​

In other words, all the discussion about AOW standards, drysuit specialty standards, direct supervision, and indirect supervision is meaningless. On that dive she was not a student in any class at all. She was just a certified diver out for a dive. She was what is sometimes called a "tagalong."

But the page before, the suit says she was a student on that dive.

189. Snow entered the water before her remaining students, including Linnea. Those students continued to don equipment for their training dives, assisted by Liston​

On the page after, it said she as a student:

196. At the time Snow and Liston entered the water just south of the Lake McDonald Lodge at approximately 5:00 p.m. on November 1, 2020, they knew or should have known that:
...
d. at least three of the students, E.G., Linnea and Nathan Dudden, were not equipped with underwater dive lights;​

So, was she a student on that dive, or was she a tagalong?

The emails between Linnea, Snow, and Liston were included to show that Linnea was taking AOW on those planned dives. Apparently she was joining a class in progress. The Complaint says that it was a Drysuit course and the other students had done their confined water session a month earlier in an indoor pool, but Linnea was told it was AOW.
The Complaint also states that Linnea registered for the AOW class.

That's why Snow was demonstrating and doing u/w compass skills with another student while Linnea's situation went from bad to worse.

 

[Ayisha]

I'm struggling a lot with this incident. I've taken several of Gareth Locke's human factors classes, and I try to recognize my hindsight bias. I also completely believe that the death of a student was never something that the instructor or dive shop expected to happen.

But... I just can't get over the complete utter lack of common sense, risk analysis, situational awareness, hell even a slight familiarization with standards. With most incidents, breaking a single link in the chain of problems would likely change an outcome. In this situation, there are like 5 things that would have needed to be done differently. It is really just flabbergasting.

Things I understand from a decision making standpoint (Emphasis on understand, not agree with):
-Adding an additional student to an in progress class. Clearly not ideal, but I can see a shop pushing another student into a class, especially if it was potentially the last class of the year. I can also see a shop instructor not feeling empowered to say no to that.

-Combining different classes - same justification as above.

-Conducting a dive too late in the day. I almost did this a couple years ago. There were several extenuating circumstances and I was in "go mode". I was coming up from one deep dive with students and had one more group left, and on the safety stop I was thinking about how I needed to make sure the incoming students had lights, etc. Once I surfaced, the incoming students said they thought starting a deep dive right after sunset was stupid. They were right of course, but we also empower them to make those decisions, and it saved my bacon that day.

-Trying to cobble together some solutions to equipment problems. Specifically, adding weight to the suit pockets.

-Making poor decisions in general while at the dive site, trying to salvage something out of a CF situation.

-Task focusing and missing something happening underwater. I can't count the number of times I've had students swim within 3 feet of me while compassing, and they never knew I was there. Of course those were AOW students, not instructors... but it still happens.

Things I just can't understand WTF they were thinking:
- an "assistant" with only an open water certification - should have never happened, and the decision to do so was apparently made before the class started. It was PLANNED!

- no DS inflator hose AND no way to hook one up. Dive over before it starts. On what f@!#ing planet is that an optional piece of equipment? Especially given the profile of the lake.

-The sheer amount of weight added. Please don't take me saying I understand putting weight in the DS pockets as approval of putting 44 lbs on this poor girl, I'm thinking like 4-6 lbs MAX, and only after doing a weight check, and probably toward the end of a dive when the student was getting floaty. How much weight did the instructor use? Is 44 lbs in the realm of normal for her? Was it added by the student, the instructor AND the openwater "assistant" with none of them communicating? Overweighting I understand, but this is in the cement shoes category.

-The selection of the dive site is one of the things I'm actually struggling with the most. Why this site? Is it the only one around? They had no permit, no means of any sort of communication without a 30 minute drive (who knows how long until help arrived, but it has to be at least an hour), the bottom profile is inappropriate for the class, it was cold as hell, and it's isolated and after season so there are no bystanders around. Again it was PLANNED to be that way! This wasn't a spur of the moment decision, they were in the warmth and safety of the shop when the decision was made.

The commonality of all of the things I don't get are that they are all decisions that were made before even getting in the water. I just don't get how either an instructor or a dive shop would not have the sense of self preservation to make those decisions. That is probably 2 to 3 people that knew most, if not all, of the above and thought "yeah, that should be okay."

WT actual F?

And that's with "2 holes in the swiss cheese" removed.

Snow offered the extra drysuit and equipment in her vehicle to Bob's wife Shannon so she could join them diving. She wasn't certified.

Snow actually managed to take Bob and Shannon's 14 year old daughter E.G. back to shore after she was very uncomfortable and couldn't clear her ears (not before pulling the minor into deeper water a few times first).

Just imagine if the uncertified person joined them in a drysuit and/or the unwilling student had continued in addition to Linnea’s situation.

We thought what they were left with was still a cluster. More "holes in the swiss cheese" could have lined up.

 

[boulderjohn]

It apparently was a used drysuit. Apparently provided by the instructor. Not sure if the reg set was provided by the instructor too.

Linnea bought the drysuit from someone not connected to the shop. It was not provided by the instructor.

 

[boulderjohn]

The emails between Linnea, Snow, and Liston were included to show that Linnea was taking AOW on those planned dives. Apparently she was joining a class in progress.

That's why Snow was demonstrating and doing u/w compass skills with another student while Linnea's situation went from bad to worse.

You can be an active student on some dives and just another diver on others. I have done the same thing with students uncountable times. If I am with a group of divers doing different classes, I may work with some on one dive and some on another. With certified students, those who are not on the instructional dive may choose to dive on their own while I am instructing the others. They are not then my responsibility.

I find the statement that by the plaintiff that Linnae was not under instruction on the dive to be significant, because it can make a huge difference. Remember what Snow wrote on the FaceBook thread that the person at fault was Bob, who was the only person who could have saved her. I would bet their defence would be that since Linnae was not being instructed on that dive, then she was just another certified diver for whom Snow had no responsibility.

I have seen it before. I did an intensive investigation of a fatality in which the plaintiff claimed that on the dive in question, the deceased was a student of the instructor with whom she had initially started the dive before thumbing it and heading back to shore. She had been a student in the past, but there was no evidence that she was a student on the dive. There was no evidence that she had even signed up for a class when that dive occurred.

 

[Ayisha]

You can be an active student on some dives and just another diver on others. I have done the same thing with students uncountable times. If I am with a group of divers doing different classes, I may work with some on one dive and some on another. With certified students, those who are not on the instructional dive may choose to dive on their own while I am instructing the others. They are not then my responsibility.

I find the statement that by the plaintiff that Linnae was not under instruction on the dive to be significant, because it can make a huge difference. Remember what Snow wrote on the FaceBook thread that the person at fault was Bob, who was the only person who could have saved her. I would bet their defence would be that since Linnae was not being instructed on that dive, then she was just another certified diver for whom Snow had no responsibility.

I have seen it before. I did an intensive investigation of a fatality in which the plaintiff claimed that on the dive in question, the deceased was a student of the instructor with whom she had initially started the dive before thumbing it and heading back to shore. She had been a student in the past, but there was no evidence that she was a student on the dive. There was no evidence that she had even signed up for a class when that dive occurred.

The Complaint also states that Linnea registered for the AOW course for those planned dives, and that they had arranged payment.

Beats me.

 

[boulderjohn]

The Complaint also states that Linnea registered for the AOW course for those planned dives, and that they had arranged payment.

Let's pull that statement out and place them side by side, because if that is true, then the complaint is contradicting itself.

EDIT: I pointed out above that the complaint contradicts itself on this point within a 2 page span.

 

[Ayisha]

Let's pull that statement out and place them side by side, because if that is true, then the complaint is contradicting itself.

EDIT: I pointed out above that the complaint contradicts itself on this point within a 2 page span.

It's a good thing I remember the layout of the Complaint:

6. On November 1, 2020, Linnea was a student in a Professional Association of Diving Instructors (“PADI”) Advanced Open Water (“AOW”) scuba diving training course offered by Defendant, Gull Scuba Center, LLC d/b/a Gull Dive Center (“Gull Dive”), of Missoula, Montana.

62. In October 2020, Linnea was recruited to participate in a course of scuba instruction to be offered by Gull Dive.

63. On or about October 18, 2020, Linnea contacted Gull Dive to inquire about the availability of an “Advanced class” in scuba instruction.

64. On that day, Snow, on behalf of Gull Dive, responded to Linnea, stating:
“Hi Linnea.
We actually are starting an advanced class next Sunday. We will have to do two weekends because we have to do four dives.
The next advanced class will not be until February of next year.
We are normally closed on Mondays but if you want to take the class we can meet you down there so you can get started on the
eLearning or get the book, whichever you prefer. The price is $250.00 and the book or eLearning is included but must be finished before class.
Let me know as soon as possible so I know wether to meet you tomorrow. Thanks Debbie”

65. Later that same evening, Linnea responded:
“Hi Debbie, thanks for getting back to me. I am free to meet whenever is convenient for you and do the payment and get the book.
Is gear included?
Just let me know what time. Thanks!
Linnea”

66. The following day, October 19, 2020, Liston, on behalf of Gull Dive, responded to Linnea’s inquiry to Snow from the night before, using the same email address: scuba@gbrv.net. Liston stated:
“Hi Linnea, thank you for the response! My day is open today so feel free to come into the shop before 5:30pm. Normally you need
to have your own gear for the advanced open water class, but since we don’t have any other classes going on next weekend we would be happy to provide you with gear. If you don’t mind texting me when you’re thinking about coming in, I will be in and out of the shop today. If you have any questions feel free to give us a call or email.
Best Regards, Seth Liston”

67. Liston, Snow and Gull Dive failed to disclose to Linnea that the “advanced class” they were “starting” “next Sunday” was actually a PADI Dry Suit Diver course that was already in progress, and the other students in the class had previously undergone an orientation to dry suit diving in a local swimming pool.

68. On or about October 19, 2020, in reliance upon her communications with Snow and Liston, Linnea enrolled in a PADI Advanced Open Water scuba diving training course offered by Gull Dive.

115. Upon information and belief, the Gull Dive Defendants combined at least two
different training courses into one for the dives at Seeley Lake: Linnea’s Advanced Open Water course and a Dry Suit Diver Specialty Course for Joel Wilson.

144. Prior to and on November 1, 2020, the Gull Dive Defendants knew that Linnea would be using a dry suit during the training dives on November 1, 2020, and they had a duty, at the very least, to ensure that the equipment they rented to Linnea was compatible with the dry suit they encouraged her to buy from Potter.

162. Rather than encourage and facilitate Linnea’s use of a dry suit on November 1, 2020, the Gull Dive Defendants should have recognized – and, indeed, they had a duty to recognize – that it was not safe for Linnea to use a dry suit during her Advanced Open Water training dives, and especially not an unfamiliar, inoperable dry suit.

163. Prior to and on November 1, 2020, Defendants, Snow and Liston, possessed
the authority to postpone, cancel or terminate the training dives on behalf of Defendants, Gull Dive, David Olson and Jeannine Olson, but neither exercised such authority.

 

[lowflyer]

I believe Lennae was a student on that dive participating in AOW training, but assume for argument that she wasn't as some may want to argue. Bob was for sure a student on that dive and therefore under the supervision of the instructor and was presumably demonstrating a skill. Can he at the same time be a buddy to someone not in the class with unknown skills?

BTW, I think Bob is the second tragedy in this cluster f*^+. He was the person who manned up, did the very best most anyone could do, and then gets shamed by Gull Dive. And his young daughter gets traumatized as well.