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

[Wookie]

 

[Subfiend]

David Concannon represents most plaintiffs. When he says what he does, I listen. It is up to the reader to decide whether they wish to exercise caution.

Hi Kosta,

I don't come here very often, but a friend let me know about your comment concerning my legal practice. To clarify, I have been involved in scuba accident litigation for more than 25 years, and 99% of my involvement has been on behalf of the defense in litigation or for manufacturers and diving professionals during fatality investigations. The Mills case in Montana is actually the first case I have filed as plaintiffs' counsel in a diving case.

You may be thinking of two other diving matters where I was involved, Bugge and Tuvell.

The Bugge family never filed a case. I initially represented the rebreather manufacturer in that incident during the Coroner's investigation; then, with the Coroner's permission, we provided an analysis of the dive computer data to the family. Any potential case the family had was resolved in one phone call to the insurance carrier, but the settlement required court approval because minors were involved. Since the family was in Idaho, where I am licensed, I filed something called a "minor's compromise" petition in Idaho family court to obtain the court's approval of the settlement.

In Tuvell, I represented the PADI Instructor and PADI Dive Center in defense of the claims brought by the plaintiffs. Later on in that case, after PADI's counsel was sanctioned for colluding with the plaintiffs, PADI was dismissed from the case but then came back in to assert cross-claims against the PADI Instructor and PADI Dive Center, I responded by filing cross-claims against PADI.

My law firm has clients, not cases, and we are no longer accepting new clients without a referral from either an existing client, former client (that I like) or friend. If a client has to file a lawsuit, fine. We do it. If the client has to defend a lawsuit, we do this too. The facts and rules of evidence don't really care which side of the courtroom we sit on. The process is always the same.

FWIW, I agree with you that the reader of any information posted online should exercise caution. Some people post without having all the information they need to be accurate. I hope you find this reply helpful.

Best wishes,

David

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Hi Kosta,

I don't come here very often, but a friend let me know about your comment concerning my legal practice. To clarify, I have been involved in scuba accident litigation for more than 25 years, and 99% of my involvement has been on behalf of the defense in litigation or for manufacturers and diving professionals during fatality investigations. The Mills case in Montana is actually the first case I have filed as plaintiffs' counsel in a diving case.

You may be thinking of two other diving matters where I was involved, Bugge and Tuvell.

The Bugge family never filed a case. I initially represented the rebreather manufacturer in that incident during the Coroner's investigation; then, with the Coroner's permission, we provided an analysis of the dive computer data to the family. Any potential case the family had was resolved in one phone call to the insurance carrier, but the settlement required court approval because minors were involved. Since the family was in Idaho, where I am licensed, I filed something called a "minor's compromise" petition in Idaho family court to obtain the court's approval of the settlement.

In Tuvell, I represented the PADI Instructor and PADI Dive Center in defense of the claims brought by the plaintiffs. Later on in that case, after PADI's counsel was sanctioned for colluding with the plaintiffs, PADI was dismissed from the case but then came back in to assert cross-claims against the PADI Instructor and PADI Dive Center, I responded by filing cross-claims against PADI.

My law firm has clients, not cases, and we are no longer accepting new clients without a referral from either an existing client, former client (that I like) or friend. If a client has to file a lawsuit, fine. We do it. If the client has to defend a lawsuit, we do this too. The facts and rules of evidence don't really care which side of the courtroom we sit on. The process is always the same.

FWIW, I agree with you that the reader of any information posted online should exercise caution. Some people post without having all the information they need to be accurate. I hope you find this reply helpful.

Best wishes,

David

David,

As always I appreciate reading your comments. I do admit to my incorrect understanding, including who gave the talk I attended at DEMA 2017 where I have focused primarily on the content of the presentation. Some may consider my interpretation/understanding that content. But I would like to add that I worked at Intel when Andy Grove was CEO and for those reading this, one of his books was titled "Only the Paranoid Survive" which was a factor in corporate culture. As an example, we would periodically receive emails of terms we could not use in emails. "Dominate", "destroy". I think that if Microsoft executives heeded the same philosophy, the DoJ would have had a weaker case against them.

My apologies for mistating your firm's role in past litigation.

Regards,
Kosta

 

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

There are cases outside the United States that are interesting because they absolutely do require action for others on a dive. I am not an attorney, so I am passing along a layperson's understanding of each case.

• In 2003, Gabe Watson, certified as a Rescue Diver by NASDS, attempted to rescue his newly certified wife, Tina, in Australia. He failed. Under the law of that area in Australia, he was not only obligated to attempt to rescue her, he was obligated to provide an effective rescue. He pled guilty to manslaughter and served a year in jail. (A later attempt to prosecute him for a supposed deliberate murder ended when it became obvious that some of the myths surrounding the case were untrue and he was merely incompetent.)

Death of Tina Watson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The chilling story behind this photo - the last image of 26-year-old Tina Watson.

She was on her honeymoon.

www.mamamia.com.au

Honeymoon 'Killer': Gabe Watson Breaks Silence on Details of Wife's Death

On Feb. 23 Gabe Watson, the 34-year-old Alabama man some called "the honeymoon killer" after his wife died on their scuba-cruise honeymoon, had the murder charge against him dismissed by a Birmingham, Ala. judge. In an exclusive interview with "20/20" anchor Elizabeth Vargas, Watson for the...

abcnews.go.com

 

[Wookie]

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/292193640_1507665449652646_3970110982460118604_n.pdf/107-Order-Denying-PADI-Defendants-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment.pdf?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=0cab14&_nc_ohc=RFIy85L8No4AX_O1fKO&_nc_ht=cdn.fbsbx.com&oh=03_AVJ_uduvH2Gn6JzcOphzkDbcH57Sx_1CVP23EhN85NohlQ&oe=62C77DA5&dl=1

The court just denied PADI’s motion for partial summary judgment in Montana, holding that there was sufficient evidence of PADI’s control over the dive shop and instructor to allow the jury to decide whether PADI can be held responsible for their actions.

 

[formernuke]

I'll bet money it won't go to jury, now that they lost that motion it will settle

 

[rsingler]

I found the judge's analysis of "ostensible agency" compelling, especially in the face of PADI claims of an active quality assurance program.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I'll bet money it won't go to jury, now that they lost that motion it will settle

I will bet against you on that.

 

[formernuke]

I will bet against you on that.

In criminal case I would agree, this is civil and PADI has had a lot of issues relatively recently.

That should be allowed in. Here is supposed quality control and yet.......

If the facts are true with everything in this case plus the other issues, plus the letter above..... way to risky.

 

[Omisson]

In criminal case I would agree, this is civil and PADI has had a lot of issues relatively recently.

That should be allowed in. Here is supposed quality control and yet.......

If the facts are true with everything in this case plus the other issues, plus the letter above..... way to risky.

95% of cases never go to verdict. Global resolutions in cases like this are an actuarial function between the insurers and their insured…weighing potential risks against policy limits and exposure.

that said- PADI also has a vested interest in protecting its “agency” liability policies- so they may indeed look to go further along in the pre-trial process while developing a record through discovery and depositions to move again to dismiss either pre-trial or post plaintiff case-in-chief. They also are likely developing an appellate record now, to argue the “agency” legal theory.