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

[formernuke]

Didn't Snow know her way around a drysuit? Do you have to be an instructor to know that the inflator hose is required? But as an instructor, whether the victim was on an instructed dive or a dive along, Snow is the one who told the victim not to worry about not having that hose and Snow is the one who loaded the victim up with weights. In these regards, to my mind, it matters not whether Snow was "instructing" the victim as the victim's "instructor" in a "specific" class or not.

It matters for legal purposes as the duty of care is much different.

If she was just a buddy then the standard is what would a reasonable buddy do.

If she was acting as an instructor then the standard is what would a reasonable instructor do.

 

[Wookie]

It matters for legal purposes as the duty of care is much different.

If she was just a buddy then the standard is what would a reasonable buddy do.

If she was acting as an instructor then the standard is what would a reasonable instructor do.

In either case, would a reasonable person (buddy or instructor) load a drysuit down with weight then ignore a missing inflator hose?

Again, we do not know if she was buddies with Bob or Snow. If Snow helped her into the drysuit, who was her buddy?

 

[formernuke]

In either case, would a reasonable person (buddy or instructor) load a drysuit down with weight then ignore a missing inflator hose?

Again, we do not know if she was buddies with Bob or Snow. If Snow helped her into the drysuit, who was her buddy?

Absolutely not. I wouldn't dive dry with someone without a inflator hose.

But legally do I actually have a legal duty to a buddy, that depends on state law and varies greatly the extent.

That's what makes these situations so wierd especially with such a niche sport.

All of us as divers would agree that even a buddy we would not do this the question is what does the law say.

As an instructor there is definitely a duty and if that was the case it was violated.

 

[Cert1967]

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.

Well, John as a long time, presumably Colorado skier - you are wrong.

Open ski runs often have unmarked obstacles / hazards. Man-made items - lift towers, snow-guns, trail signs, and the like, which may be marked, fenced, and/or padded - as required by CRS. But, if man-made obstacles are visible from ~100 feet the requirements change.

Me? I have ~110 days between the ropes this year and ~20 or so in the backcountry.

Want to join me for a day on the slopes - probably not - but if you did, I will show you numberous unmarked obstacles on open runs. I've got 'core shots' on numerous pairs of skis as a testament to these obstacles.

I bet you would assume that a Colorado ski area would be liable for an in-bounds avalanche resulting in injury? Maybe not. Read the Winter Park and Taft cases for details.

You may wish familarize yourself with

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 33 - Parks and Wildlife Recreational Areas and Ski SafetyArticle 44 - Ski Safety and Liability § 33-44-107. Duties of ski area operators - signs and notices required for skiers' information33-44-107. Duties of ski area operators - signs and notices required for skiers' information​

(7) The ski area operator shall mark hydrants, water pipes, and all other man-made structures on slopes and trails which are not readily visible to skiers under conditions of ordinary visibility from a distance of at least one hundred feet and shall adequately and appropriately cover such obstructions with a shock-absorbent material that will lessen injuries. ​

Dive operators should be so lucky as to enjoy the liability protection afforded to Colorado ski operators by state law.

CO Rev Stat § 33-44-112 (2016) ​

Notwithstanding any judicial decision or any other law or statute to the contrary, including but not limited to sections 13-21-111 and 13-21-111.7, C.R.S., no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.​

​

"Inherent dangers and risks of skiing"​

​

... means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine- made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man- made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, jumps, and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.​

 

[Esprise Me]

Absolutely not. I wouldn't dive dry with someone without a inflator hose.

But legally do I actually have a legal duty to a buddy, that depends on state law and varies greatly the extent.

That's what makes these situations so wierd especially with such a niche sport.

All of us as divers would agree that even a buddy we would not do this the question is what does the law say.

As an instructor there is definitely a duty and if that was the case it was violated.

I'd be curious to hear of any case law in any state that says you have NO duty to a dive buddy. How much of a duty, I can see varying considerably, and in some states there might not be any statute or published case on point to provide specific, controlling authority. But I would be very surprised if any jurisdiction held there was no duty of care at all.

That said, in the context of a class, I could imagine the instructor's duty essentially swallowing the buddy's duty of care.

 

[Cert1967]

I'd be curious to hear of any case law in any state that says you have NO duty to a dive buddy. <<>> That said, in the context of a class, I could imagine the instructor's duty essentially swallowing the buddy's duty of care.

Google is your friend - this should get you started

Rasmussen, et al., v. Bendotti, 107 Wn. App. 947; 29 P.3d 56; 2001 Wash. App. LEXIS 1962​

Brendan YACE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Dennis DUSHANE, Defendant and Respondent. No. B162789. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC272937) Dec. 16, 2003​

​

And buddies as a group

Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters, 823 F. Supp. 778 (D. Haw. 1993)​

​

Diving in Florida? Maybe you should ask your buddy for a release?

Borden v. Phillips, 752 So. 2d 69 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 1st Dist. 2000​

​

 

[Darnold9999]

Well, John as a long time, presumably Colorado skier - you are wrong.

Open ski runs often have unmarked obstacles / hazards. Man-made items - lift towers, snow-guns, trail signs, and the like, which may be marked, fenced, and/or padded - as required by CRS. But, if man-made obstacles are visible from ~100 feet the requirements change.

Me? I have ~110 days between the ropes this year and ~20 or so in the backcountry.

Want to join me for a day on the slopes - probably not - but if you did, I will show you numberous unmarked obstacles on open runs. I've got 'core shots' on numerous pairs of skis as a testament to these obstacles.

I bet you would assume that a Colorado ski area would be liable for an in-bounds avalanche resulting in injury? Maybe not. Read the Winter Park and Taft cases for details.

You may wish familarize yourself with

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 33 - Parks and Wildlife Recreational Areas and Ski SafetyArticle 44 - Ski Safety and Liability § 33-44-107. Duties of ski area operators - signs and notices required for skiers' information33-44-107. Duties of ski area operators - signs and notices required for skiers' information​

(7) The ski area operator shall mark hydrants, water pipes, and all other man-made structures on slopes and trails which are not readily visible to skiers under conditions of ordinary visibility from a distance of at least one hundred feet and shall adequately and appropriately cover such obstructions with a shock-absorbent material that will lessen injuries. ​

Dive operators should be so lucky as to enjoy the liability protection afforded to Colorado ski operators by state law.

CO Rev Stat § 33-44-112 (2016)​

Notwithstanding any judicial decision or any other law or statute to the contrary, including but not limited to sections 13-21-111 and 13-21-111.7, C.R.S., no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.​

​

"Inherent dangers and risks of skiing"​

​

... means those dangers or conditions that are part of the sport of skiing, including changing weather conditions; snow conditions as they exist or may change, such as ice, hard pack, powder, packed powder, wind pack, corn, crust, slush, cut-up snow, and machine- made snow; surface or subsurface conditions such as bare spots, forest growth, rocks, stumps, streambeds, cliffs, extreme terrain, and trees, or other natural objects, and collisions with such natural objects; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences or enclosures, hydrants, water pipes, or other man- made structures and their components; variations in steepness or terrain, whether natural or as a result of slope design, snowmaking or grooming operations, including but not limited to roads, freestyle terrain, jumps, and catwalks or other terrain modifications; collisions with other skiers; and the failure of skiers to ski within their own abilities.​

Interesting - it looks like CO passed the laws for the ski industry BC decided not to. This is pretty much exactly what the ski industry wanted. Must have paid for good lobbyists. Not a good idea IMHO as it provides too much protection for the ski hill. I read the above as giving the ski hill a pass even if they do something really really stupid and someone gets hurt as a result.

 

[Edward3c]

Google is your friend - this should get you started

Rasmussen, et al., v. Bendotti, 107 Wn. App. 947; 29 P.3d 56; 2001 Wash. App. LEXIS 1962​

Brendan YACE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Dennis DUSHANE, Defendant and Respondent. No. B162789. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC272937) Dec. 16, 2003​

​

And buddies as a group

Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters, 823 F. Supp. 778 (D. Haw. 1993)​

​

Diving in Florida? Maybe you should ask your buddy for a release?

Borden v. Phillips, 752 So. 2d 69 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 1st Dist. 2000​

​

I remember reading somewhere a Florida court throughout a diving liability waiver.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

In either case, would a reasonable person (buddy or instructor) load a drysuit down with weight then ignore a missing inflator hose?

Again, we do not know if she was buddies with Bob or Snow. If Snow helped her into the drysuit, who was her buddy?

I see the following mistakes:
1. No inflator hose. Training should have stopped there.
2. No weight check. Even though I use an alternative method for determining proper weighting, the one given to most instructors will be a course, but not overwhelmingly negatiave
3. No skills check. While in shallow water, get the student into a hover, comfortable (I look at breathing cycle), do some basic skills. It takes a couple minutes at most.
4. Site selection. Now I could be way off, but it seems that there is a sudden drop off to very deep water. Not a good idea with 1, 2, and 3.
5. Lack of control of students.
6. Weather/environment/time of day. Late in the day with daylight disappearing, cold conditions to which the victim was not familiar/conditioned to, is a big no.

No one's life depends on taking a course. There is always later when conditions are better. Pushing through in inadvisable conditions can be fatal, and was in this case. There is just so much wrong in this case, far worse than all other training deaths I've followed in the PNW. This is where the judgment of the instructor makes zero sense. You can't see me wave my hands around before I typed this, but I really don't get what was going through Debbie's mind.

Duty of care begins before getting into the water, btw. I've terminated second dives due to students being cold (and nothing like that day). This was when I taught at a shop. Now, everyone is in dry suits, no exception.

 

[formernuke]

I'd be curious to hear of any case law in any state that says you have NO duty to a dive buddy. How much of a duty, I can see varying considerably, and in some states there might not be any statute or published case on point to provide specific, controlling authority. But I would be very surprised if any jurisdiction held there was no duty of care at all.

You could be right about no state having NO duty to bubbies I don't have time research 50 states in depth to find out. Especially since there is likely differences between what they legally consider buddies. Remember when you start talking legal considerations for this stuff common sense usually goes right out the window.

My point was, lets use an extreme example what if it turns out that that they were planning on doing a class but the instructor went on a pre dive to check conditions and Leanna decided to graph the other student and do try my new suit dive. This would change things a lot as Snow was not acting as instructor at that time and Leanna was not a student.

Do I think that's the case, not bloody likely. But if so now it has to be looked at whether or not Snow was in any capacity a buddy even on surface and what that standard is.

We have only seen the complaint, it would be interesting to see the answers.