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

[MrVegas]

So in other words, Linnea made bad decisions and her death is her own responsibility.

Not necessarily -- and this is a difficult topic given the tragic outcome. Most of the discussion so far, though, has assumed that the factual allegations of the complaint are uncontested and that there are no other relevant facts. I don't know what the contributory negligence laws are in Montana, but even if the Defendants provided bad advice, if the Plaintiff was found to be more negligent than the Defendants it is possible that Defendants could be found not liable. I don't know, but would guess that lawyers for both the Defendants (possibly hired by insurance companies) and Plaintiffs have researched these issues thoroughly and disagree. There may also be a liability waiver involved (but we don't know this either way at this point).

If adults are to be permitted to engage in potentially risky pastimes (scuba, skydiving, mountain climbing, shooting\hunting, etc.), the cost of those activities will increase and accessibility will decrease the more we expect to be protected from ourselves. An example of this would be the certification requirements to dive in certain Florida springs. I'm not necessarily saying that it is a bad idea to require a full cave certification to dive in certain locations, but such requirements have increased the cost for those that want to do those dives and have decreased general accessibility. I'm not making a judgment here as to whether that's a good idea -- it might be. But there is always a tradeoff. If a teacher\student relationship is established, the analysis perhaps changes, but, again, depending on the state and profession, an adult might have the ability to release the teacher in advance from liability for the teacher's negligence.

I maybe had heard a reference to the shop renting equipment to an uncertified diver (maybe on this thread -- I'm not sure). Are there any laws that prohibit that? I can rent a handgun at a range and be given ammunition with few questions asked, and I know almost nothing about firearms. If I sign a waiver and then hurt myself, is the range responsible?

 

[Wookie]

I can rent a handgun at a range and be given ammunition with few questions asked, and I know almost nothing about firearms. If I sign a waiver and then hurt myself, is the range responsible?

True, but to carry that out, I have never been to a range that doesn't provide 5 minutes of range safety from a (presumably) trained range safety officer, especially if "I know little about firearms".

Linnea was (to read the complaint) given 48 lbs of non ditchable weight from an untrained assistant to the instructor, who may or may not have been acting as an employee or volunteer at that time, or the employee/volunteer may have been under the supervision of a dive instructor, or the dive instructor may have given the weight to Linnea. We don't know that yet, but as soon as a lawyer, a court reporter, and the volunteer/employee (who doesn't have a million dollar liability policy) get together, I assume we will know more.

This is more like handing a 4 year old a loaded Glock and showing him a lone ranger movie.

 

[Wookie]

Are there any laws that prohibit that?

There are no scuba laws except to dictate where you can dive or spearfish.

Many shops will not rent or fill a cylinder without seeing a c-card, to reduce their exposure, but there are no laws.

 

[MrVegas]

We don't know that yet, but as soon as a lawyer, a court reporter, and the volunteer/employee (who doesn't have a million dollar liability policy) get together, I assume we will know more.

And the potentially big question for the diving community in general is whether the drysuit sellers and PADI remain in the case after summary judgment motions. How would that impact shop\instructor insurance, requirements to show additional certifications to undertake certain dives, etc.?

 

[Wookie]

And the potentially big question for the diving community in general is whether the drysuit sellers and PADI remain in the case after summary judgment motions. How would that impact shop\instructor insurance, requirements to show additional certifications to undertake certain dives, etc.?

There are basically 3 underwriting consortiums in the diving liability business, all Lloyds syndicates. It isn’t like Florida windstorm, a claim with one will not negate being underwritten by another if dropped. One of my biggest beefs with diving insurance was that if you do everything right, follow all recommendations, and never have a loss you will pay the same rates as the guy who refuses to follow best practices and has losses.

 

[Wookie]

And the potentially big question for the diving community in general is whether the drysuit sellers and PADI remain in the case after summary judgment motions. How would that impact shop\instructor insurance, requirements to show additional certifications to undertake certain dives, etc.?

Quite frankly, if the dry suit seller has no assets, I wouldn’t expect much of a pursuit of them.

 

[chillyinCanada]

Quite frankly, if the dry suit seller has no assets, I wouldn’t expect much of a pursuit of them.

She seems to have a successful yoga studio but who knows how that's been since covid.

 

[Wookie]

She seems to have a successful yoga studio but who knows how that's been since covid.

I'd expect she was named so that the real defendants (those with insurance) couldn't point their finger at her and blame her without at least a response from her lawyer.

 

[CycleCat]

As we have said in recent posts, the filing contradicts itself many times, saying at some times that the dive was a training dive and at other times that it was not. I think the fact that they have not ever specified what training dive she was doing is interesting.

I think some of the confusion is answered in part 72 of the complaint:

"the student must successfully complete five “Adventure Dives” in open water to earn this [AOW] certification. Two of these “Adventure Dives” must be a deep dive (beyond 60 ft.) and a navigation dive, and three additional “Adventure Dives” are chosen from a menu of PADI “continuing-education” courses in a variety of specialties."

I'm guessing the shop rationalized that the dry suit specialty met the criteria for one of the optional specialties and was their reason for putting her in that class even though she was not taking the dry suit class.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think some of the confusion is answered in part 72 of the complaint:

"the student must successfully complete five “Adventure Dives” in open water to earn this [AOW] certification. Two of these “Adventure Dives” must be a deep dive (beyond 60 ft.) and a navigation dive, and three additional “Adventure Dives” are chosen from a menu of PADI “continuing-education” courses in a variety of specialties."

I'm guessing the shop rationalized that the dry suit specialty met the criteria for one of the optional specialties and was their reason for putting her in that class even though she was not taking the dry suit class.

There is no place where the complaint says that. If she had been doing the AOW drysuit dive at the time, that would be a HUGE factor for the plaintiff and a competent attorney would have highlighted it. David Concannon is a competent attorney, and he did not highlight it. In fact, the complaint he filed specifically says in places that it was a "noninstructional" dive.

So, to repeat, there are places where the complaint seems to claim that she was on an instructional dive, and places where it clearly says she was not on an instructional dive. If the dive was instructional, then the failure of the "instructor" would be far more damning, so the failure of the complaint to highlight that suggests that she was not doing a specific AOW dive.