I see all of that, and it contradicts the plaintiff's own statement that the specific dive was not instructional for her. I am lost as to how to explain it.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.
Here is another puzzle about this complaint. You will notice I posted the specific PADI standards and requirements for the drysuit adventure dive. I noted that none of those standards were even attempted. Why did the complaint not do that for the dive she did? It would be quite damning. The AOW course requires 5 dives. Can you find anywhere in the complaint where they identify the dive she was doing that night? If they were to identify the AOW dive she was doing, wouldn't you think they would list the standards for that dive, just as I did, since she obviously did not do any of them? Before you can do your adventure dive, you have to complete the knowledge review for that dive. That, too, is not mentioned in the complaint, unless I missed it.
If I were the plaintiff's attorney, I would have identified the dive for which she was supposedly being instructed, mentioned when she did or did not do the knowledge review for it, listed the standards for that dive, and indicated the degree to which those standards were met or not met. That would be devastating to the defendant. That attorney is no fool, and he has been in scuba-related litigation for many years. Why didn't he do that?