Training agency throws Instructor under the bus while misleading the court

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!

cerich

ScubaBoard Supporter
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
Messages
7,475
Reaction score
5,579
Location
Georgia
# of dives
5000 - ∞
So, how would you feel if you followed standards (or at least there were no allegations you did not), there was an accident and your agency immediately kicked you out with no process.(and tried to destroy your reputation at DEMA and other events because the accident involved a kid and was pretty high profile) Then when the family sues the agency settles with the family...but doesn't tell anybody so they can work WITH the family suing you while pretending to be on the defense..all so they don't have to defend their standards..who in another case a federal judge expressed grave misgivings about.
It happened, it's on record and if you are teaching PADI it should concern you greatly.
Their lawyer ended up getting caught and fined for his games but they still tried to cover it up and what it cost them...
The settlement was $800,000 BTW. You can read it here..it provides quite the glimpse into the world of scuba liability....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8JaxD-1TXSiMjNEOVpOOWpiRkE/edit?usp=sharing
 
Generally speaking, even when there's an individual defendant who would make an attractive and very cheap sacrificial offering to the plaintiff, we advise the deep-pockets defendant to insist on a complete release of all claims against all defendants. Whatever you might be able to save on a settlement number is simply not worth the lack of closure and additional media circus involved in throwing someone under the bus.

But PADI looks to have been hiring cheap help, so I guess you get what you pay for.
 
Is this be the case that triggered this addition on all the PADI Release forms?

NON-AGENCY DISCLOSURE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT AGREEMENT
I understand and agree that PADI Members (“Members&#8221:wink:, including ____________________________________________________________ and/or any individual PADI Instructors and Divemasters associated with
the program in which I am participating, are licensed to use various PADI Trademarks and to conduct PADI training, but are not agents, employees or franchisees of PADI Americas, Inc, or its parent, subsidiary and
affiliated corporations (“PADI&#8221:wink:. I further understand that Member business activities are independent, and are neither owned nor operated by PADI, and that while PADI establishes the standards for PADI diver training
programs, it is not responsible for, nor does it have the right to control, the operation of the Members’ business activities and the day-to-day conduct of PADI programs and supervision of divers by the Members or
their associated staff. I further understand and agree on behalf of myself, my heirs and my estate that in the event of an injury or death during this activity, neither I nor my estate shall seek to hold PADI liable for the
actions, inactions or negligence of ____________________________________________________________ and/or the instructors and divemasters associated with the activity.
 
It is the case that triggered Willis to not insure anyone who DSDs any more than 2:1.

Under the circumstances I am finding it is improper for P.A.D.I. and the plaintiffs to do what they did with respect to misrepresenting, after a full settlement had been reached, misrepresenting that a case was still alive. It is as simple as that. I think that is improper behavior, and I do think the parties acted under these unique circumstances, they acted based on a belief that P.A.D.I. was still a defendant.

I'm going to award a $2,000 sanction, which I think will recognize primarily that the defendants, the Blue Water defendants unnecessarily responded to the amended complaint. That will be awarded against both P.A.D.I.'s counsel and the plaintiffs' counsel jointly and severally.

I think that, in the west, that's called a pee-pee whackin'.
 
Makes me think of the SDI Solo diver liability waiver. Seems like these things will eventually progress to read...

I hereby acknowledge that by engaging in this activity I am attempting suicide. I do so as an adult of informed decisional capacity and of my own free will. In the event I succeed, I hereby hold everybody blameless.

Richard.
 
Makes me think of the SDI Solo diver liability waiver. Seems like these things will eventually progress to read...

I hereby acknowledge that by engaging in this activity I am attempting suicide. I do so as an adult of informed decisional capacity and of my own free will. In the event I succeed, I hereby hold everybody blameless.

Richard.
This is something completely different. It's about an instructor getting hosed. Yes there were fatalities, two in fact, kids. PADI said that the program itself was safe as far as standards. Its not as it allows an instructor to take too many in the water by him/herself. So if they do take say four in and one gets separated and hurt or dies, all blame gets placed on the instructor. It's why at least one insurer and one agency for sure say no more than two to one. For me with kids it's one to one by directive of the agency I do them under.
 
It is the case that triggered Willis to not insure anyone who DSDs any more than 2:1.


Under the circumstances I am finding it is improper for P.A.D.I. and the plaintiffs to do what they did with respect to misrepresenting, after a full settlement had been reached, misrepresenting that a case was still alive. It is as simple as that. I think that is improper behavior, and I do think the parties acted under these unique circumstances, they acted based on a belief that P.A.D.I. was still a defendant. I'm going to award a $2,000 sanction, which I think will recognize primarily that the defendants, the Blue Water defendants unnecessarily responded to the amended complaint. That will be awarded against both P.A.D.I.'s counsel and the plaintiffs' counsel jointly and severally.






I think that, in the west, that's called a pee-pee whackin'.


So basically, all the lawyers (and judges who are also lawyers) were laughing all the way to the bank. Despicable.
 

Back
Top Bottom