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

[Manatee Diver]

Thanks for the answer.

Perhaps he evaluated that, in this specific case, other things play a more important role than the standards... otherwise it doesn't make sense that he didn't include them

I didn't read past the narrative and scanned through the claims, but discovery hasn't happened yet, so typically you don't lay your cards out fully until then.

 

[Manatee Diver]

Yes. When you really need to win a scuba case, no matter what state you are in, this is the guy to see.

Well it wasn't a hard guess there probably isn't much scuba litigation in Montana.

 

[Wookie]

Well it wasn't a hard guess there probably isn't much scuba litigation in Montana.

I was kinda surprised to find a dive shop existed there, and I hadn't been in it. (My dad lived in Seeley Lake for 30 years and I used to fly into Missoula regularly).

 

[Ayisha]

How many attorneys know that much of the diving industry?...

This one even used to be a lawyer for PADI.
@Cert1967 knows what to include and not.
That's why it's causing some head scratching.

 

[ginti]

This one even used to be a lawyer for PADI.
@Cert1967 knows what to include and not.
That's why it's causing some head scratching.

I didn't know he was a member of SB. Well, I don't know if he can really participate in this discussion due to his role in the suit, but for sure there must be a reason why standards are not there

 

[Ayisha]

Yep, and the failure to identify the specific AOW dive Linnea was supposed to be doing and cite the standards for it is a very curious omission, especially with the clear statement that she was not doing an instructional dive.

I think they tried to explain the non-instructional dive earlier, at #147:

147. Pursuant to the PADI RRA Membership Standards, the Gull Dive Defendants had a duty to ensure that Linnea was appropriately certified for noninstructional dives – in other words, that she was certified to use a dry suit while other students in the water during her Advanced Open Water course were taking a Dry Suit Diver Specialty Course.

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.

I have no idea how it was determined that it was the drysuit diving portion of the training, since they didn't seem to have outlined any skills or done any skills towards it, as you said. There are gaps for sure, but they seem to be trying unsuccessfully to explain it.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think they tried to explain the non-instructional dive earlier, at #147:

147. Pursuant to the PADI RRA Membership Standards, the Gull Dive Defendants had a duty to ensure that Linnea was appropriately certified for noninstructional dives – in other words, that she was certified to use a dry suit while other students in the water during her Advanced Open Water course were taking a Dry Suit Diver Specialty Course.

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.

I have no idea how it was determined that it was the drysuit diving portion of the training, since they didn't seem to have outlined any skills or done any skills towards it, as you said. There are gaps for sure, but they seem to be trying unsuccessfully to explain it.

Right. It is still confusing.

#147 seems to me to contradict itself. This part of the first half of the sentence ("Gull Dive Defendants had a duty to ensure that Linnea was appropriately certified for noninstructional dives") contradicts the "in other words" rephrasing of the point ("that she was certified to use a dry suit while other students in the water during her Advanced Open Water course were taking a Dry Suit Diver Specialty Course.")

So was that fatal dive part of her AOW course, or was it noninstructional?

I am not an attorney, but I was an English teacher, so I am going to examine that seemingly self-contradicting sentence that way. I am going to get very fine with the definitions of the words.

1. The first half of the sentence says that the defendants had a duty to ensure that she was certified for noninstructional dives (supposedly including the fatal dive).

2. The second half of the sentence refers to her being allowed to wear a drysuit while other students were in the water taking a drysuit specialty course "during her Advanced Open Water course." I don't think any casual reader would read it this way, but it it seems to me this half of the sentence implies that once Linnae signed up for the AOW course, then everything she did after that was "during the AOW course," even if a specific dive was not part of the required course and was therefore noninstructional.​

If that is a valid interpretation, then that is news to me and I believe to other instructors around the world as well. If my technical students sign up for the Tech Deep class (Tec 40-50) or the Trimix class, there are certain dives that are part of the class, but students are expected to do experience dives along the way. In fact, a student who begins Tech 40 with only the minimum required dives, that student cannot complete the entire course without doing additional personal dives.

If a student of mine finished Tec 45 and then goes out on a weekend on his or her own and does a bunch of dives of any kind, is that student my responsibility during those dives?

 

[Manatee Diver]

I was kinda surprised to find a dive shop existed there, and I hadn't been in it. (My dad lived in Seeley Lake for 30 years and I used to fly into Missoula regularly).

Which actually got me thinking about the composition of the jury. Jury selection can make or break a case. In Montana I am wondering how scuba would be perceived. Here in Florida nearly everyone knows someone that dives, and I think the perception is that it is a normal recreational activity. I am wondering if the lack of diving in the jury pool may have the jury perceive that diving is a more dangerous activity than a Florida or say Southern California jury, and would that help or hurt the plaintiff's case.

I think it may hurt it, as if the activity is seen as more dangerous than the assumed risk is higher than if it were perceived as a largely safe hobby.

 

[sea_ledford]

I completely agree with your flabbergasted-ness at the huge number of things that were done very, very wrong here. But I still think this tragic chain of events could have been stopped if they just hadn't put her in that non-functional drysuit. She survived an earlier dive with this shop in 2 wetsuits; not saying that was a good idea or that none of the other problems with this whole situation matter, but I think the point at which she entered the water with no suit inflator and 44 lbs. of unditchable lead was the real point of no return here. It breaks my heart.

Maybe. But 44 lbs in a functional drysuit being used by someone with no idea how to use a dry suit might not have mattered. If she was adding air and it was just dumping right out the shoulder, we would probably be asking what she was doing to go though 78 cuft of gas in five minutes.

But that and a different location are the most likely single change that could have made a difference.

 

[boulderjohn]

Which actually got me thinking about the composition of the jury. Jury selection can make or break a case. In Montana I am wondering how scuba would be perceived. Here in Florida nearly everyone knows someone that dives, and I think the perception is that it is a normal recreational activity. I am wondering if the lack of diving in the jury pool may have the jury perceive that diving is a more dangerous activity than a Florida or say Southern California jury, and would that help or hurt the plaintiff's case.

I think it may hurt it, as if the activity is seen as more dangerous than the assumed risk is higher than if it were perceived as a largely safe hobby.

I am not an attorney, but it is my understanding that both sides seek out a jury that knows as little as possible about this sort of thing so that their decisions are based on what they experience in court.