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

[Jcp2]

Endanger the buyer! It is the buyer who used it to endanger others. That is the difference.
If someone used a scarf to strangle someone would the manufacturer be sued for that?
Product liability? What is that for high heel shoes, shoes lace, scarf, stocking etc etc?

You American just like filing lawsuit to feed the parasite(lawyer).

Sweet summer child! You must be pretty ancient.

It’s not a matter of liking or not liking to sue. It’s how the legal system of liability works in this country.

 

[Hiszpan]

In UK you could sue a seller (only if he is acting in the course of business, so private sales do not fall into that category) under the Contract of Sales Act terms, which can not be waivered out. To summarize without too much details, the law stipulates the goods need to be appropriate for the use they are intended for and also that they are appropriate for the particular use a buyer is intending to use it for, having informed implicitly or explicitly the seller about the use it is going to be put up to.
In the UK and the whole EU you could also sue a manufacturer under the Product Liability Directive if you can prove that the product was defective by being less safe than the public is generally entitled to expect. You do not need to prove anyone’s fault why the product is defective, only that it is defective within the definition of defectiveness.

in this scenario, if it happened in UK, if the seller was made aware that the dry suit is for an inexperienced diver who never dove it and only had few dives experience in total, it could be argued that the good was not fit for the intended purpose communicated to the seller. If the seller was not aware who is it for and was only asked for a drysuit for cold water diving, there would be no cause of action.

in terms of manufacturer’s liability, you would have to prove that this particular brand/model is more prone to accidents than other comparable drysuits and hope that statistical evidence convinces the judge. Alternatively, you can prove that there was a manufacturing defect of some sort or a design defect in this particular model which made it ‘less safe than general public is entitled to expect’.
Because some goods are inherently dangerous, like a gun or a rebreather, it doesn’t make them ‘defective’ just because they are dangerous to handle and can injure or kill you at a rate higher than other goods put up to use - the Directive allows for these type of goods.

 

[Wookie]

in this scenario, if it happened in UK, if the seller was made aware that the dry suit is for an inexperienced diver who never dove it and only had few dives experience in total, it could be argued that the good was not fit for the intended purpose communicated to the seller. If the seller was not aware who is it for and was only asked for a drysuit for cold water diving, there would be no cause of action.

In this scenario, what if you sold it to the buyer, but delivered it to the instructor, with the understanding that the instructor would teach the buyer to use it. But later discovered that the instructor was not a drysuit instructor?

 

[clownfishsydney]

Wow, this is the most amazing stuff up situation leading to a death I have ever read. There are so many spots where this could have been stopped.

• Encouraging someone to do an Advanced course at altitude after only 5 dives
  
• Diving in very cold water after only 5 dives
• Putting someone in two wetsuits at any time
• Encouraging someone to but a drysuit after only 6 dives
• Diving with a drysuit after only 6 dives
• Diving with a drysuit without any advice/instruction
• Not checking that the hired dive gear was compatible with drysuit
• Overweighting drysuit diver
• Taking the diver underwater without an attached inflator hose
• Let alone watching after the student underwater

Lister really has little to worry about due to his own inexperience, but others, especially owners and the instructor are in deep sh*t.

Once again this really shows up the problems with training standards that divers do not even need any experience to do AOW, become DMs or instructors.

I am constantly annoyed by instructors with only a 100 or so dive experience telling me how much weight to carry or how to dive (I have almost 4,400 dives, done in waters from the fjiords of Norway to South America to tropical Pacific).

 

[Divin'Papaw]

Even if you take into account possible exaggeration and overstatement by the attorney bringing the lawsuit, there are so many things wrong with the basic preparation, site selection, emergency planning and conduct of these dives it is hard to fathom. Regardless of what comes out of this lawsuit this event is an incredible tragedy. A healthy, vibrant, energetic 18 year old young lady needlessly lost her life due to the negligence of others.

When you add this tragedy to the senseless training fatality at Hidden Paradise in Indiana in the same general timeframe (Oct 12 and Nov 1, 2020), it has me a bit shell shocked and perplexed.

• How can these things still happen?
• Two needless fatalities of divers in training within a few weeks of each other?
• Shouldn't the scuba instruction industry have practices and safeguards in place and teeth to enforce them to shut down unsafe businesses?

Both of these incidents occurred with shops that had a history of issues but yet they were able to continue to operate and put students at risk. Now two women are dead as a result. Beyond tragic. I'm incredibly disheartened.

 

[Centrals]

It’s not a matter of liking or not liking to sue. It’s how the legal system of liability works in this country.

In that case anything is liable! Tooth pick can cause serious damage if I poke it on someone eyes.
I have not seen any warning on kitchen utensil eg. knife. This device is only to be used in the kitchen. Please do not use it to attack other persons.
"Liability"when lawyer smells money.

 

[Hiszpan]

In this scenario, what if you sold it to the buyer, but delivered it to the instructor, with the understanding that the instructor would teach the buyer to use it. But later discovered that the instructor was not a drysuit instructor?

The word ‘later’ would be crucial - at the moment of sale you were not aware of that fact and that what counts.

 

[Rollin Bonz]

In that case anything is liable! Tooth pick can cause serious damage if I poke it on someone eyes.
I have not seen any warning on kitchen utensil eg. knife. This device is only to be used in the kitchen. Please do not use it to attack other persons.
"Liability"when lawyer smells money.

YET you mean... haven't seen that YET...

 

[MrVegas]

This is just so tragic. Hard to read that Complaint.

This question may be a difficult one to ask, but, hypothetically, for learning purposes, when should an adult certified diver be expected to know when to not get in the water?

My PADI AOW book has a "Standard Safe Diving Practices" page, and divers are warned about several issues: familiarity with dive site, familiarity with equipment, adherence to the buddy system, proper weighting, etc.

This is not to excuse anything that happened in this specific incident -- if the allegations in the Complaint are accurate. Just hoping that we learn something about what warning signs should cause an adult certified diver to know whether or not to participate in a dive.

 

[Esprise Me]

This question may be a difficult one to ask, but, hypothetically, for learning purposes, when should an adult certified diver be expected to know when to not get in the water?

I think when you're taking a course to expand your knowledge and skills, you can find yourself in over your head, so to speak, without having done anything wrong. The instructor has a significant responsibility because by definition, if the students were fully qualified to do these types of dives, they wouldn't be in class.