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

[crofrog]

when I had a student at 260 feet during an open water dive

That's a story I'd like to hear.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Absolutely understand that for most runs (I don't think I have ever seen a natural obstacle marked on a double black diamond run, not that I have been on too many), and in many ways the result in this particular case in the early 80's ensures that ski hills today spend quite a bit of time and energy monitoring conditions, marking said obstacles, padding towers etc. Without having any liability (which is what the local hills wanted to eliminate) the incentive to get this right is significantly reduced. Which is a large part of what my opinion said in WAY more words The balance that is tricky is that you don't want to put all of or even any of the responsibility for the normal risks of skiing onto the ski hill. You just want to make sure that what they do does unduly add to this normal risk. Not simple. Lots of parallels to diving.

As a former ski patroller in the 90s, you pretty much nailed it. We were always looking for hazards and marking them, roping then off. I got a lot of grease stains on my jacket from adjusting tower pads.

Though we would have racers ducking under ropes when we were lighting dynamite for avalanche control.

Never thought that shade of red on the patrol director's face could occur in nature.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Even after that, when it came time to renew membership, SDI/TDI sent that same letter to its members, even though so much of it had been shown to be false,

Where would I find information on what was false as I'm genuinely curious. Is it embedded somewhere in this thread?

An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

If Willis thought more than two was indefensible, why on earth are they trying to defend an instructor who not only exceeded common sense for the lake, but also broke standards at the same time. It's either indefensible or it's not. Aside from the timeline, as Wookie mentions, I think there are...

scubaboard.com

 

[Wookie]

That's a story I'd like to hear.

It’s posted here somewhere. I’ve told it before

 

[Esprise Me]

After receiving a complaint, PADI does its own investigation and acts in accordance with its findings. It will not send those results. It published expulsions and the like, but if the appropriate response is deemed to be something along the lines of remedial education, then that is not published.

I'm curious what you and others think of this policy. I wonder if having lesser disciplinary actions published might change anyone's perception of the agency's culpability, or their legal liability.

 

[Wookie]

You may want to check out the thread about this on ScubaBoard and read how you excoriated PADI for "throwing the instructor under the bus." SDI/TDI put out a public letter attacking PADI for blaming the instructor and invited instructors to cross over to SDI, an agency that promised to stand behind their instructors' actions. You trumpeted that line, praising SDI for that promise.

Sure, and hindsight shows that PADI did exactly correctly by expelling the instructor. Then PADI came back into the lawsuit on the side of the family.

Do you know/understand all of the sub-currents of that lawsuit and the insurance company and all of the things happening in that case that are still going on? Karma.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Sure, and hindsight shows that PADI did exactly correctly by expelling the instructor. Then PADI came back into the lawsuit on the side of the family.

Do you know/understand all of the sub-currents of that lawsuit and the insurance company and all of the things happening in that case that are still going on? Karma.

I'd be curious how this attorney is wrong in his opinion When a training agency decides it is more important than its instructor members or, worse, the training agency helps the plaintiff sue its own members

 

[boulderjohn]

Where would I find information on what was false as I'm genuinely curious. Is it embedded somewhere in this thread?

An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

If Willis thought more than two was indefensible, why on earth are they trying to defend an instructor who not only exceeded common sense for the lake, but also broke standards at the same time. It's either indefensible or it's not. Aside from the timeline, as Wookie mentions, I think there are...

scubaboard.com

It is posted repeatedly in the thread on that case, and as I said in the earlier post, PADI published a letter detailing the standards that were violated. The SDI/TDI letter said absolutely no standards were violated, which is stunningly untrue.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

It is posted repeatedly in the thread on that case, and as I said in the earlier post, PADI published a letter detailing the standards that were violated. The SDI/TDI letter said absolutely no standards were violated, which is stunningly untrue.

I'll go read it, as I'd like to line up with what the laywer blogged about it. It doesn't make any difference of course, just satisfies my curiosity.

 

[MrVegas]

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. . . .

Maybe . . . but as far as I can tell, the items posted on this thread are the Plaintiff's Complaints, the prosecutor's decision not to file a criminal complaint, and the news report about a pleading filed by PADI. We haven't seen the Defendants' responsive pleadings or any discovery, as far as I know.