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

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I couldn't remember who Seth Liston was, so I had to go back to the complaint. For anyone else having trouble keeping track of the cast of characters, he was the 22-year-old shop employee who emailed with Linnea and "assisted" with the course, although he had only a PADI Junior OW cert himself.
 
You (average person) can’t seal one of the most critical - and central- pieces of evidence in a wrongful death case and hope to prevail. While I’m sure the family has an interest in maintaining her dignity- that’s just not how litigation works (for normal people) there is a “sunlight standard” for most evidence (unless significantly wealthy enough or politically connected)

in sum this is neither surprising nor out of jurisprudential norms….
I fixed it for you.

I get kinda tired of the gaslighting that goes on around the joke that our justice system has become (if it was ever not).
 
”… our lawyers have asked the Judge to protect the video of Linnea dying and her lifeless body on the beach, and Gull Dive, the Olsons, Debbie Snow and PADI are opposing this too! Even Seth Liston’s lawyer is opposed, despite the fact that his client has been dropped from the case. This is particularly disturbing. We do not want to see this video on the Internet, and the law is on our side, but the defendants are fighting against us. We want to preserve our daughter’s dignity and memory….”

Respectfully, as soon as a the family chose to file a lawsuit the whole “keep the video secret” thing was our the window.

You can’t seal one of the most critical - and central- pieces of evidence in a wrongful death case and hope to prevail. While I’m sure the family has an interest in maintaining her dignity- that’s just not how litigation works there is a “sunlight standard” for most evidence…

I can see PADI wanting it out there to prove the instructor violated standards and was grossly negligent. Similarly- I’d imagine there are other contributory negligence issues it raises against the plaintiff.

in sum this is neither surprising nor out of jurisprudential norms….
Now, I’m not a lawyer, and I didn’t even play one on television, but it seems to me that National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 170-71 (2004) applies in this particular instance (the Constitutional right to “personal privacy” included the “surviving family members’ right to personal privacy with respect to their close relative’s death scene images”). And the 9th circuit is frequently overturned, but Marsh v. County of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2012) (“we find that the Constitution protects a parent’s right to control the physical remains, memory and images of a deceased child against unwarranted public exploitation”).

Article II, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution, “[t]he right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”

So maybe you are correct, but federal precedent and the Montana constitution seem to think differently.
 
Now, I’m not a lawyer, and I didn’t even play one on television, but it seems to me that National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 170-71 (2004) applies in this particular instance (the Constitutional right to “personal privacy” included the “surviving family members’ right to personal privacy with respect to their close relative’s death scene images”). And the 9th circuit is frequently overturned, but Marsh v. County of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2012) (“we find that the Constitution protects a parent’s right to control the physical remains, memory and images of a deceased child against unwarranted public exploitation”).

Article II, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution, “[t]he right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”

So maybe you are correct, but federal precedent and the Montana constitution seem to think differently.
Because you are not a lawyer (and don’t even play one on TV) you don’t understand how to read precedent or interpret a statute. So you are, of course - completely wrong; neither federal precedent, nor the Montana constitution say anything remotely like you THINK they do….

You blindly cite two “cases” without context- neither actually have anything to do with putting issues into dispute through filing a lawsuit- contesting factual assertions made in such a lawsuit- not doing so in federal district court…nor by private actors as opposed to government officials.

Since none of these matters (third party or in litigation) are actually even a tangential discussion in your “authorities” cited (more silly legal mumbo jumbo) They clearly don’t apply.

In fact the court in Marsh actually directly contradicts your assertions- but because you have no idea what is in the case beyond some Google search headline you are reading - you don’t know that:

“In National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish,541 U.S. 157, 170–71, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004), the Court held that death scene photographs fell under an exemption to FOIA's general requirement of public access to government information, which carved out “law enforcement records or information ... [that] could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).”

That’s a citation within the Marsh case- so the case itself posit is that while a FOIA request for death scene photographs can be rejected for privacy reasons- third party and litigation materials are NOT similarly protected. Because Marsh is based on a prosecutor unlawfully releasing an autopsy photo to a newspaper years after a trial where someone was convicted and then that conviction was overturned.

So, there was no ongoing litigation and the photo was taken by government actors (coroner) and released by a government official (prosecutor- who had retired but his possession of the photo flowed from his government official status) And was unjustified under California law:

California Code of Civil Procedure § 129states:

[N]o copy, reproduction, or facsimile of any kind shall be made of any photograph, negative, or print, including instant photographs and video tapes, of the body, or any portion of the body, of a deceased person, taken by or for the coroner at the scene of death or in the course of a post mortem examination or autopsy made by or caused to be made by the coroner, except for use in a criminal action or proceeding in this state which relates to the death of that person, or except as a court of this state permits, by order after good cause has been shown”

- as you can see the privacy issue is purely related to photos taken by or for a Coroner’s office. It has nothing to do with third parties, or litigation materials.

Then you cite the Montana constitution:
Section 10. Right of privacy. The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.

Again- the “state interest” clause serves to alert you that it is proscribing GOVERNMENTAL action- not third party (private) action. Moreover, it certainly does not apply when people put issues into controversy by filing a lawsuit.

But you do a great service of continually pointing out why people who have no idea what they are talking about shouldn‘t….. so thanks for that….
 
Agreed. But if the opinion given is along the lines of "I think agency X sucks" Then it is agency bashing IMO.
Shrugs I have a lot of gripes with multiple agencies. (including the one defending itself here). It's a shame that pointing out how deficient so many agency "foundations" are prohibited - but we can point out how many houses (instructors) end up all crooked.

As far as the video of their daughter goes, being shown as part of the trial and being published "on the internet" are not necessarily the same thing. Hopefully whoever has copies of that has the wisdom to keep it between themselves and the court.
 
Dude, tone.
 
Dude, tone.
Meh. It’s OK. It’s why he’s disbarred.


An international diving association insists it should not be held liable for the death of a Missoula woman who attended dive training sanctioned by the association.

The Professional Association of Diving Instructors Worldwide Corporation is denying vicarious responsibility for the November 2020 death of Linnea Mills, according to a document filed April 4 in Missoula County District Court.

Mills drowned while participating in cold-water dive training with instructors working for Gull Dive of Missoula. Gull Dive advertises itself as a member of PADI’s Retailer and Resort Association, and its instructors are supposed to adhere to PADI training standards. But a lawsuit filed in May 2021 by Mill’s parents and other dive trainees asserts that Gull Dive instructors weren’t fully qualified and failed to follow many PADI safety requirements.

Debbie Snow was a newly certified PADI instructor who wasn’t certified to teach diving at altitude or diving with a dry suit, both of which present dangers. She failed to check Mills out on the myriad of equipment Mills was to train in. Snow didn’t check Mills’ equipment prior to the fateful dive and then allowed Mills to use an inappropriate and dangerous combination of gear.

During the dive, Snow failed to monitor Mills’ situation until catastrophe resulted. Those breaches of PADI and other safety requirements led to Mill’s death in the depths of Lake MacDonald in Glacier National Park where Gull Dive didn’t have a permit to dive, according to Mills’ complaint.

Mills’ lawsuit charges PADI with vicarious liability because PADI didn’t police Gull Dive even after a previous lawsuit was filed against Gull Dive for a diving death in 2019.

June2020-grad-with-Scott-Mills-263x350.jpg
Linnea Mills pictured during her graduation. (Courtesy Photo)
Mills’ attorney David Concannon argues that PADI prides itself in its programs and merchandise but doesn’t hold its members accountable. PADI gives its Retail members incentives to sell more certifications and employ more instructors, which can lead some to cut corners and take chances. If shops break the rules, PADI doesn’t inform the public if a shop is expelled from the organization. In this case, Gull Dive didn’t report the 2019 incident to PADI and kept using the PADI name and displaying the PADI sign, according to the lawsuit.

In the Mills’ lawsuit, Concannon cited part of PADI’s advertising that says “PADI instructors are trained and held to diving’s highest standards, backed up by a solid, proactive quality management system,” and “All PADI programs, from entry-level through scuba instructor training, fall under strict educational standards monitored for worldwide consistency and quality.”

In her April 4 response for PADI, Helena attorney Cherche Prezeau argues that Gull Dive and its instructors are not agents of or employed by PADI, so PADI has no responsibility. Prezeau said that PADI issues disclaimers on various documents, from student documents to its website, saying member shops are not agents of PADI. As evidence, Prezeau has submitted agreement forms that Mills initialed when signing up for training that include such disclaimers.

“As a federal district court in Hawaii determined when evaluating a similar vicarious liability claim against PADI (in 2015): ‘PADI is simply a professional organization and certifying entity, with numerous independently operating members,’” Prezeau wrote. “Here too, the undisputed evidence shows that Gull Dive Defendants are not PADI’s actual agents and that PADI’s acts would not have led Linnea Mills, or anyone else, to reasonably believe Gull Dive Defendants were agents of PADI.”

In a Jan. 26 deposition, Charles A. Hornsby, PADI Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs, said a prospective PADI member dive center or instructor agrees to follow PADI training standards and to be subjected to PADI’s quality assurance review “if there is any issue regarding the member’s adherence to PADI training standards.”

If a quality assurance review finds standards weren’t met, “PADI’s only recourse is to either counsel, retain, suspend or expel the member after the fact,” Hornsby said.

In June, the U.S. Attorney for the State of Montana declined to press criminal charges against Snow, saying while the instructor was “likely at fault to some extent for Mills’ death, we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally culpable.”

Because you are not a lawyer (and don’t even play one on TV) you don’t understand how to read precedent or interpret a statute. So you are, of course - completely wrong; neither federal precedent, nor the Montana constitution say anything remotely like you THINK they do….
The court entered a protective order on Friday. So you’re right that I’m not too bright when it comes to the law, that’s why I hire smart lawyers. The ones that can still practice. Like I can still practice in my profession. As well as teaching diving. I haven’t been professionally disqualified from any of my chosen jobs.

How ‘bout you?
 
A) always great to use as hominems when you can’t win an argument…. Nice to see you are consistent in being a tool. When you snark it’s all good… but hey I guess that’s why we are internet tough guys, huh?

B) did you READ the order? Maybe that would explain exactly WHAT the court ordered and WHY….

hint: it has Nothing whatsoever to do with anything you have said….

C) and in case you’d like - or anyone- an explanation of why/how someone gets disbarred - as a matter of law- I’m happy to explain off thread since it’s not a scuba topic…

but you do a great job showing why double standards exist online for everything from what constitutes facts to what is offensive…
 
A) always great to use as hominems when you can’t win an argument…. Nice to see you are consistent in being a tool. When you snark it’s all good… but hey I guess that’s why we are internet tough guys, huh?

B) did you READ the order? Maybe that would explain exactly WHAT the court ordered and WHY….

hint: it has Nothing whatsoever to do with anything you have said….

C) and in case you’d like - or anyone- an explanation of why/how someone gets disbarred - as a matter of law- I’m happy to explain off thread since it’s not a scuba topic…

but you do a great job showing why double standards exist online for everything from what constitutes facts to what is offensive…
Thanks
 
Google says: Vicarious liability is a situation in which one party is held partly responsible for the unlawful actions of a third party.
=====================================================================

I fail to see why PADI should be held responsible for this terrible tragedy. I hold the instructor 100% responsible for the decisions made regarding the conduct of that dive. PADI as an entity made no decisions regarding the conduct of that dive.

PADI did layout in the standards how these type dives should be conducted and who can conduct them. The instructor ignored those standards entirely.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom