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

[Wookie]

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.

Playing Devil’s advocate, when you are a PIRA member, you agree to adhere to a certain set of standards. When you are a PADI member, you agree to adhere to a certain set of standards. I think it’s obvious to the most casual observer that neither the instructor nor Gull dive followed those standards.

I believe the complaint is that PADI says that they have a robust QA process to ensure that those members are actually following the standards that they agreed to follow. I know personally that I have been involved in 2 QA investigations.

Again, playing Devils advocate. If the facility was booted from PADI for any reason, and continues to advertise that they are a PADI facility, does PADI have any responsibility to take any further action against the facility, or to warn the public that the facility is no longer a member because they didn’t follow the standards that they agreed to follow?

PADI makes a big deal about their standards followed by members, indeed, that’s their major selling point. You may have heard it once or twice that PADI is the way the world learns to dive. Why does the world learn to dive that way? Because PADI has impeccable standards. So if a instructor or facility doesn’t follow those standards, does PADI have a duty to warn the public that the facility is not a PADI facility?

 

[Miyaru]

PADI publishes the list of expelled professionals publicly. So yes, they warn the public.

 

[Wookie]

PADI publishes the list of expelled professionals publicly. So yes, they warn the public.

Interesting that neither Gull Dive nor Debbie Snow are on any of those lists.

I wonder how effective they are, or how egregious the violation must be to get on it?

 

[Miyaru]

Interesting that neither Gull Dive nor Debbie Snow are on any of those lists.

I wonder how effective they are, or how egregious the violation must be to get on it?

If there is a court case running, QA will likely wait for the verdict. Until that time the teaching status is usually put on hold.

If it's about a complaint without legal proceedings, you're usually notified of the investigation, if your teaching status is temporarily revoked, and once they have heard your side of the story, a decision is made.
The organization could decide to return you to teaching status, but double check standards with every certification for a period of time.

The reason for the decision is never published.

In this specific case, I wonder how the instructor can possibly prove that no training standards were broken.

 

[Darnold9999]

As I read all of this the ONLY way PADI is going to be held responsible for any of this is if the courts find 1 There was gross negligence 2 That the release does not protect against gross negligence 3 That PADI’s advertising creates a duty of care to students.

1 and 2 are pretty much a slam dunk in this case. 3 is the interesting question and definitely within the realm of possibility for a court here and I would guess in the US as well.

As a very young lawyer I spent several weeks doing research in a similar sport. Ski hills in my jurisdiction were panicking because a court in the Eastern US had found the ski hill responsible for damages to a beginner skier who fell on the bunny hill and ended up paralyzed. They wanted the government to step in and pass laws excluding them from liability. The very short version of my opinion on the subject was that there was no need to panic and good reasons for holding ski hills responsible for their negligence. In the specific case the ski hill had advertised the sport and their site as completely safe for beginners. They had not maintained the bunny hill to a reasonable standard (the skier caught a tip on an exposed root) and the exclusion of liability was printed on the back of the ticket ( and probably didn’t apply anyway)

The end result of this was that government did not pass any law and the local ski hills made damn sure that they stopped advertising skiing as a safe sport. They also stepped up maintenance and barrier installation and started posting their liability limitations and the rules of the road on ski hills.

All this to say that because PADI advertised that they monitor instruction and provide standards that a court could easily find that PADI had some kind of duty of care to students. Exactly what the advertising said and what a reasonable person would understand the advertising to mean would be key. IMHO anyway.

 

[Miyaru]

They had not maintained the bunny hill to a reasonable standard (the skier caught a tip on an exposed root) and the exclusion of liability was printed on the back of the ticket ( and probably didn’t apply anyway)

So because the sun caused the snow to melt, a root got exposed. Sounds like a common act of nature.

But yes I get it. Pretty hard to sue nature...

 

[boulderjohn]

So because the sun caused the snow to melt, a root got exposed. Sounds like a common act of nature.

But yes I get it. Pretty hard to sue nature...

While that was an act of nature, the ski area is supposed to monitor the natural conditions and either add snow through its snowmaking process, mark off the area where the root is exposed so that skiers can avoid it, or close that run completely.

 

[boulderjohn]

Once again, as noted earlier, the charges include the typical exaggerations and misleading statements noted earlier.

Here is just one example:

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.

There is no such thing as a certification for teaching at altitude. There is no such thing as certification for teaching with a drysuit.

There are certifications for teaching the drysuit specialty and the altitude specialty course, but the victim was not taking either course at the time. In fact, as was pointed out several times with maddening frustration earlier in this thread, we really don't know what courses were being taught to whom in that specific dive. I earlier wondered why that information was omitted in the charges.

 

[Darnold9999]

So because the sun caused the snow to melt, a root got exposed. Sounds like a common act of nature.

But yes I get it. Pretty hard to sue nature..

On a regular run absolutely. However, On a “bunny hill” a ski hill leaving roots exposed would be asking for trouble and almost certainly be negligent. Possibly not grossly negligent but that would depend on the facts. On a bunny hill I would argue that the ski hill should monitor snow conditions and close the run if a beginner who is unable to evaluate the risk would be at a significant risk. A run with exposed roots meets that test IMHO.

In the case of a ski hill featuring advertising an absolutely safe experience to beginners it was no question negligence - according to the court - the final arbiter of such questions.

 

[boulderjohn]

On a regular run absolutely. However, On a “bunny hill” a ski hill leaving roots exposed would be asking for trouble and almost certainly be negligent

As a long time avid skier, I assure you that if any ski run is open, obstacles are marked off so skiers can avoid them.