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

[Esprise Me]

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.

It does suck. In cases where it's really obvious a named defendant could not possibly be liable, there are sometimes remedies at law. In federal court, Rule 11 can be used to make the plaintiff pay the defendant's legal costs in a frivolous suit, and many states have equivalent statutes. But that's a really high bar, and I don't know that this rises to that level. It's an unfortunate reality of our system that a lot of innocent people get swept up and have to spend a lot of time and money defending themselves, and are never made whole after they "win."

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

It does suck. In cases where it's really obvious a named defendant could not possibly be liable, there are sometimes remedies at law. In federal court, Rule 11 can be used to make the plaintiff pay the defendant's legal costs in a frivolous suit, and many states have equivalent statutes. But that's a really high bar, and I don't know that this rises to that level. It's an unfortunate reality of our system that a lot of innocent people get swept up and have to spend a lot of time and money defending themselves, and are never made whole after they "win."

I would hope that the judge would quickly examine the facts and immediately remove that person from the list of defendents, but I doubt the system works that way.

 

[Esprise Me]

I would hope that the judge would quickly examine the facts and immediately remove that person from the list of defendents, but I doubt the system works that way.

They do, but the money goes even quicker. I mean, you could appear pro se and file your own motion for summary judgment and maybe get out from under the suit without paying attorneys' fees, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Wookie]

The warning label on my dry suit. I have no idea what a Brooks says:

 

[stiebs]

... 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.

Here's my take on this. Not a lawyer, I no little about the US legal system, and even less about any state based nuances in this case. But this is how I read it ..

50. The PADI RRA Membership Standards required PADI facilities like Gull Dive to ensure that divers are appropriately certified for noninstructional dives (Standard No. 17) and to, “[p]rovide modern dive equipment for instruction and for rent to students and certified divers as described in the PADI Instructor Manual” (Standard No. 11).

In this clause, the scene is being set to highlight that defendant had a duty of care that any divers under their supervision are appropriately certified. This is re-iterated in Clause 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.

The claim that this was a non-instructional dive is in Clause 193:

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.

Given that there was little to no hard evidence presented that this event could stand up as part of an AOW course - lack of class work, paperwork etc. Even to the point of being able to argue that due to lack of supporting evidence, that it indeed was not a training dive.

It seems that the plaintiff may be honing in on the defendants' negligence independent of whether or not there was an instructional component.

My thoughts only, likely flawed

 

[KevinNM]

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.

If they had provided the dry suit inflator hose needed for safe operation with the suit they probably wouldn’t be here. They do not appear to be principally at fault, but they appear to have helped set the stage.

If they did and the victim failed to bring it then they are in a lot better position.

 

[Marie13]

If they had provided the dry suit inflator hose needed for safe operation with the suit they probably wouldn’t be here. They do not appear to be principally at fault, but they appear to have helped set the stage.

If they did and the victim failed to bring it then they are in a lot better position.

If they even had it...

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

If they had provided the dry suit inflator hose needed for safe operation with the suit they probably wouldn’t be here. They do not appear to be principally at fault, but they appear to have helped set the stage.

If they did and the victim failed to bring it then they are in a lot better position.

You make a fair point and I have no idea how the law interprets (or will interpret) the claims and many of the points made here, including yours.

There are many possibilities, from the seller not having such a hose or has one for another dry suit that they are keeping. The seller cannot reasonably be expected to know if the dive shop has appropriate hoses. As it was the instructor who facilitated this sale, it is not unreasonable for the seller to think the shop had it covered.

I still feel pretty strongly that the instructor is still the one who had the authority and expertise to call the dive. The dive center should have had the dry suit inspected to ensure that there was a proper fit. Improperly fitted dry suits are just a disaster.

Also, if the instructor had performed a weight check on the students using even gross methods, the student wouldn't have had 44 lbs.

Given that the student did not have ditchable weight, and with the weight distribution described, the student was probably one of the most, if not the most, foot heavy dry suit scuba diver in history (hardhat commercial divers obviously excluded). Let's assume she did have an inflator hose. From a vertical position, a fully inflated BCD at depth, how much lift would she get from her dry suit if the dry suit is burping continuously? If it had a silicone neck seal, that dry suit would have burped like crazy. A latex wouldn't be as bad, but still would be allowing air to escape. A neoprene neck seal would perform the best, but still likely burp. I've had all three types of neck seals with my previous dry suit.

 

[MrVegas]

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.

I'm not so sure. Do we know whether the diver completed the e-Learning or signed off on the knowledge review? In my AOW book, the drysuit portion discusses suit squeeze and warns that a squeeze can cause welts and bruises and even restrict breathing. The drysuit portion also discusses dangers of overweighting.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'm not so sure. Do we know whether the diver completed the e-Learning or signed off on the knowledge review? In my AOW book, the drysuit portion discusses suit squeeze and warns that a squeeze can cause welts and bruises and even restrict breathing. The drysuit portion also discusses dangers of overweighting.

I am not sure of your point here, so I will just rephrase mine, hopefully with more clarity.

There is no mention that I can find anywhere in the complaint that Linnea did any of the academic preparation for the class. They mention books in an quoted email, so I assume they were using a book and not elearning. If the shop has been dropped by PADI (as the complaint suggests but I cannot find confirmed), they could not do elearning.

My point was that for whatever reason, the complaint does not claim that she was doing the drysuit AOW dive. I earlier listed all the standards for the drysuit AOW dive, and pretty much none were even attempted. If she had been specifically doing the drysuit AOW dive and the instructor had not made even the slightest attempt to adhere to those standards, I would have expected the complaint to make that a huge point by highlighting the instructor's failure to attempt to follow standards. To me, combining the fact that the complaint 1) does not say it was a drysuit AOW dive, 2) does not list the standards for the drysuit AOW dive, and 3) does not point out that no attempt was made to adhere to the standards for the drysuit AOW dive is a solid indication that the dive was not planned as a drysuit AOW dive.