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

[boulderjohn]

Following along down that rabbit hole of instruction or noninstruction....

In one of the emails, the instructor specifically states that AOW requires 4 dives. It requires 5, so if that was not a typo, she is off standards from the start. It is very possible that the shop intended to give the AOW certification to her after she completed 4 dives, with no real instruction done on any of them. Another curiosity is that she appears to be doing something along the lines of compass instruction with Bob, although it is hard to figure out what. He was supposedly taking the drysuit specialty. There is no compass work required in the drysuit specialty, so what was that all about?

Curiouser and curiouser.

(Extra points for those who connect the first and last sentences (not counting this one) of this post.

 

[CycleCat]

There is no place where the complaint says that.

It was cut & pasted from the bottom of page 17. More detail follows on subsequent pages.


And I got the Alice in Wonderland reference from your last post.

 

[boulderjohn]

You misunderstood when I said there was no place in the complaint that said that. I should have been more clear. I was responding to this statement of yours: "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 in the complaint where they suggested that this was the shop's intent. You could be right, but it is hard to identify any clear motivation for the shop's actions. The more you understand about the requirements of the courses, the more confusing it gets. Nothing in this makes any sense from an instructional point of view.

 

[sea_ledford]

Nothing in this makes any sense form an instructional point of view.

Sure it does:
Shop owner: Hey instructor, I have a student to add to your Drysuit class. She needs to do her AOW.
Instructor: Ok. You want me to run a drysuit class and AOW at the same time?
Shop owner: Yes, she just has to do 4 dives. Do navigation for one of them and you should be good.
Instructor: Ok.

But I agree it makes no sense from a standards or pedagogical point of view.

 

[Miyaru]

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.

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

How does this work?
If I sell a used drysuit to somebody and don't ask/know about drysuit certification, can I be held liable if anything happens during a dive with that drysuit?

 

[Wookie]

How does this work?
If I sell a used drysuit to somebody and don't ask/know about drysuit certification, can I be held liable if anything happens during a dive with that drysuit?

I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea about the law in Montana, or anywhere else, really.

That said, I sell used dive gear all of the time without asking for a certification card. Dive shops sell gear all of the time without asking for a c-card. You can buy brand new gear online without access to a c-card. I do not find that practice at all distasteful.

However, (and I'm still not a lawyer) I expect that one of the reasons for such a shotgun approach is that if you don't name all of the parties, one party will just point the finger at an unnamed party and say "it's their fault". That's why there are so many John Does as defendants in this case. If the named defendant says "It's the National Park Services fault", the NPS just became one of the John Does and have to get dismissed.

If I'm wrong, one of the real lawyers (as opposed to sea lawyers) please correct me.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

However, (and I'm still not a lawyer) I expect that one of the reasons for such a shotgun approach is that if you don't name all of the parties, one party will just point the finger at an unnamed party and say "it's their fault". That's why there are so many John Does as defendants in this case. If the named defendant says "It's the National Park Services fault", the NPS just became one of the John Does and have to get dismissed.

It just sucks for the person who sold the dry suit to get sucked into this and have to spend money for a lawyer to be dismissed from the list of defendents.

 

[Wookie]

It just sucks for the person who sold the dry suit to get sucked into this and have to spend money for a lawyer to be dismissed from the list of defendents.

Might suck worse if every other defendant points a finger at them....

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Might suck worse if every other defendant points a finger at them....

Yeah, I just don't see that working in court. But I'm not a lawyer and stranger things have happened.

 

[Marie13]

The only used dive gear I’ve seen posted for sale that requires certification are rebreathers. And the really responsible sellers will send the unit to an instructor if the buyer isn’t yet certified on that specific unit.