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

[MrVegas]

I can’t call it an accident because that dive center was so incredibly negligent.

Just a reminder that this has not yet been proven. The Complaint contains the Plaintiffs' allegations, not evidence that has been offered in court. The Defendants have the right to dispute liability and dispute the factual allegations in the Complaint. I don't know anything more than anyone else, but the Defendants have not yet filed their Answer to the Complaint, so we have no idea what they will deny or admit.

 

[Ayisha]

What a horrible situation, I can’t call it an accident because that dive center was so incredibly negligent. However I think the plaintiff went too far in suing the person selling the dry suit. SP didn’t ask me for my cert card whenI bought the bcd and reg set. People on this board sell gear and I bet the sell sellers don’t normally ask for cert cards.

Not too long ago a new met this board posted about spending $10k on diving gear for him and his wife who are not yet certified. He received lots of negative feedback yet no none said it was unsafe.

It was mentioned earlier that if they didn't add Potter, the other Defendants would be pointing their fingers at her. Either way, she would have likely ended up at least one of the Jane Doe's.

It also goes to the layout of how the sale of the suit was facilitated, presumably to subvert PADI Standards.

It might be a good idea for people selling some of their used gear to put on the ad something to the effect that it's sold "as is", "should be serviced by an authorized representative", and "this equipment should only be used by someone certified in its use".

Maybe an attorney might comment on what could be done to protect a seller in more "normal" circumstances.

 

[boulderjohn]

Just a reminder that this has not yet been proven. The Complaint contains the Plaintiffs' allegations, not evidence that has been offered in court. The Defendants have the right to dispute liability and dispute the factual allegations in the Complaint. I don't know anything more than anyone else, but the Defendants have not yet filed their Answer to the Complaint, so we have no idea what they will deny or admit.

I earlier mentioned another case that I had had to investigate for reasons I won't go into. This issue became a huge factor.

The plaintiff issued a complaint. The defense moved to stop it right there (I don't know the legal terms for this.) To stop that from happening, the plaintiff submitted an expert statement saying the defendant was at fault. I spoke to the expert witness and asked about clear inaccuracies in his statement, and he told me that it was all done in a hurry and he essentially signed what the lawyer told him to say. The case ended at that point with a small settlement, so neither the complaint nor the expert witness statement were ever publically rebutted. Years later, the expert witness statement was widely circulated as if it were the final determination of the lawsuit.

 

[Storker]

A DM/dive leader allowing a diver to splash without a working DS inflation hose would be criminally negligent. I don't understand how there can be any confusion about that. Especially if the diver were inexperienced.

Even on a rec club dive, I wouldn't allow that. And if I did, I'd earn every piece of flak I got.

 

[Wookie]

Discussed earlier in the thread starting at post 369 on page 37. TL;DR version, it happens rarely, and probably hasn't happened (yet?) in this case because the coroner concluded it was an accident.

However, it happened in a national park. So something to consider is if the National Park Service ISB is doing an investigation?

They wouldn't care what the coroner says.

Well, if they were doing a criminal investigation.

 

[sea_ledford]

In fact, it is hard to find a single DSD standard that the instructor did NOT violate. Because of their connection (which I still do not understand) to the instructor's insurance company, SDI/TDI went very public with their repeated claims that the instructor had not violated a single standard, so it was the PADI standards that were at fault. After a while, PADI published an open letter specifying a long list of standards violations, and I think that letter missed some. The instructor's performance was in the ballpark of this case in his incompetence.

So, in the Utah case, the plaintiff's attorney tried to keep PADI in as a defendant by pretending that the real fault in the case lay with PADI and its poorly written standards, not so much the performance of the instructor who was so understandably confused. Something similar might be going on here. If their complaint shows that the instructor clearly violated all sorts of standards, then the judge might wonder why PADI is being blamed for having unclear standards.

I remember the kerfuffle was about the gross standards violations and the thought that insurance wouldn't end up covering him. The TDI/SDI "support" of the instructor was that negligence doesn't void insurance coverage, I think as a means to dig on PADI/V&B saying they wouldn't even be representing the instructor.

But, I'm with Wookie, it was a while ago and I'm not sure i remember correctly anymore. And there were certainly questions of "how can an instructor meet standards with anymore than 1-on-1 instruction, even if PADI allows 4-1?"

 

[boulderjohn]

But, I'm with Wookie, it was a while ago and I'm not sure i remember correctly anymore. And there were certainly questions of "how can an instructor meet standards with anymore than 1-on-1 instruction, even if PADI allows 4-1?"

The one point I wanted to focus on was that one side claimed loudly and consistently that the instructor had not violated any standards, even though he had violated nearly all of them, in an obvious attempt to put ALL the blame on PADI's standards. I was citing that in regard to this complaint's curious failure to mention many if not most of the instructor's standards violations, and I was wondering if it served the same purpose--to keep PADI and its deep pockets in the lawsuit.

 

[Wookie]

The one point I wanted to focus on was that one side claimed loudly and consistently that the instructor had not violated any standards, even though he had violated nearly all of them, in an obvious attempt to put ALL the blame on PADI's standards. I was citing that in regard to this complaint's curious failure to mention many if not most of the instructor's standards violations, and I was wondering if it served the same purpose--to keep PADI and its deep pockets in the lawsuit.

I don't think that anyone can say here that the instructor didn't violate standards. The problem would be listing all of the standards violations without running out of ink or paper. I would guess that PADI is named for the same reason that the Drysuit Seller is named, so that the defendants can't point their finger at them and make them a John Doe.

I don't pretend to be a lawyer, nor do I understand strategy, that's why I'm a lousy chess player.

I wish I knew what the earlier fatality was all about and what was done to prevent it from happening again.

 

[boulderjohn]

I wish I knew what the earlier fatality was all about and what was done to prevent it from happening again.

I looked it up a few days ago but did not find anything helpful. A Montana candidate for public office, a very experienced diver, wanted to film a campaign ad featuring him underwater. The producer/filmmaker (whatever the title) was in the water off the boat and had some kind of problem while the candidate was on the boat. The candidate jumped into the water to save him, but he was unsuccessful. The only articles I found did not provide any information helpful to this case. They did not mention the shop or his certification status.

 

[sea_ledford]

I was citing that in regard to this complaint's curious failure to mention many if not most of the instructor's standards violations, and I was wondering if it served the same purpose--to keep PADI and its deep pockets in the lawsuit.

I agree, although I don't see how that will work. It is either a non-training dive, in which case PADI has nothing to do with it, or it was a training dive, in which case... "Here is the binder of standards violations by the instructor. Here are the Instructors IE records showing she passed academic and in water requirements at the time of her exam. Here are all of the internal QC documents we have on the instructor. Why are we here again?"

Unless PADI does have a bunch of QC documents that demonstrate repeated standards violations, and a lack of evidence of them doing anything about it, it seems to me that PADI should be in the clear.