Training fatality after Instructor held student down - Stoney Cove, UK

[Celt]

From a reporter who probably has no dive training or diving experience?　
How does it happen that an instructor and also an another dive master assisting on the same dive let a student get to an OOA situation in the first place?

A detailed accident report is needed to know was he OOA or was he not able to breathe. If he was out of air the instructor could have thought that was the only problem. But he should have brought him to the surface to determine exactly what was going on when he couldn’t breathe from the octo,s

 

[grassgreen]

Perfect A&I topic. We have two sides to the story-- one in which the instructor held him under and physically prevented him from surfacing, and the other in which he merely communicated to the student that he shouldn't surface-- but both accounts agree that the instructor felt completing the safety stop was more important than getting to the surface where the student had already run out of air twice on a deep dive. Now this is something we can argue about, whether or not we ever get all the facts!

Personally, I respectfully disagree with your position. Given a diver who had already run out of air even once, even if I were sure there was plenty left for us to share, I would skip the safety stop. And in fact I have made exactly that decision in a real-world situation. My instabuddy and I had both just signaled to each other that we each had a little over 1,000 psi left at 70 feet and we were ready to ascend. As we began our ascent, she suddenly signaled that she was out of air and grabbed my octo. I helped her get the hose out of the D-ring and we ascended at a normal rate but with no safety stop. On the surface, her regulator started working again. We never did figure out for sure exactly what the problem was; she was using rental gear and was only here on vacation. I surfaced with plenty of air still; we could've done a safety stop, but I stand by my decision not to and would do the same again. Granted, 70 feet is not a deep dive, but I'd also do the same if we'd been deeper. And I always do safety stops absent a problem this serious, and I even do at least 5 minute stops on deep dives or dives where my NDL has gotten below 5 minutes.

But this is a great what-if to discuss!

For the scenario you mention, where a reg stops working at depth but works again at the surface, most likely cause is tank valve only partially open....just for future reference

 

[Johnoly]

Hung jury,,,no verdict

 

[clownfishsydney]

Article about the trial and failure to reach a verdict. Jury fails to reach verdict in scuba diving manslaughter trial

 

[Chris Stock]

Article about the trial and failure to reach a verdict. Jury fails to reach verdict in scuba diving manslaughter trial

I can't believe after all that, the jury only deliberated for "several hours" and was dismissed. Seems like a pretty short time frame. Also means there's more info than we know about.

 

[clownfishsydney]

Only articles I could find were about the first day of the trial and the verdict. Lots of evidence must have been presented in between.

 

[MrVegas]

Unless you actually watch an entire trial all the way through, it's really, really hard to make any conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of a verdict from reports in the press.

Also, this was a criminal trial. While there are some strict liability crimes and there is such a thing as criminal negligence, people don't generally go to prison just for making a mistake with no intent. Here, it appears the dive instructor thought he was doing the right thing. They can lose everything they own in a civil negligence case, maybe.

The interesting thing about "dangerous sports" civil cases is that in some jurisdictions, waivers of simple negligence are valid and upheld. There are policy arguments on both sides, of course, but the existence of the ability of an individual to waive liability for negligence arguably makes such sports less expensive and more available. There's always the question of how badly we want someone else to protect us from ourselves and how much we are willing to pay for such protection.

 

[happy-diver]

Fortunately the trial was held somewhere relatively normal where cooler heads prevailed

 

[Seaweed Doc]

Unless you actually watch an entire trial all the way through, it's really, really hard to make any conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of a verdict from reports in the press.

Also, this was a criminal trial. While there are some strict liability crimes and there is such a thing as criminal negligence, people don't generally go to prison just for making a mistake with no intent. Here, it appears the dive instructor thought he was doing the right thing. They can lose everything they own in a civil negligence case, maybe.

The interesting thing about "dangerous sports" civil cases is that in some jurisdictions, waivers of simple negligence are valid and upheld. There are policy arguments on both sides, of course, but the existence of the ability of an individual to waive liability for negligence arguably makes such sports less expensive and more available. There's always the question of how badly we want someone else to protect us from ourselves and how much we are willing to pay for such protection.

Love the comment about watching the trial all the way through before second-guessing a jury. There's usually a lot more involved than what the press reports.

However, I wonder if the UK is different than USA: Criminal liability seems much more common from my very limited observation of the UK legal system, and civil suits less common. (There's also this odd concept of "private prosecution" that is I don't get. As I understand, a victim's family might bring a criminal case if the crown prosecutor elects not to.) Anybody on the Board whose name ends in "QC" want to comment? (Or one whose name doesn't end in QC yet, but might someday?) My expertise is limited to watching Rumpole of the Bailey and a large number of UK crime dramas.....

 

[Wibble]

Love the comment about watching the trial all the way through before second-guessing a jury. There's usually a lot more involved than what the press reports.

However, I wonder if the UK is different than USA: Criminal liability seems much more common from my very limited observation of the UK legal system, and civil suits less common. (There's also this odd concept of "private prosecution" that is I don't get. As I understand, a victim's family might bring a criminal case if the crown prosecutor elects not to.) Anybody on the Board whose name ends in "QC" want to comment? (Or one whose name doesn't end in QC yet, but might someday?) My expertise is limited to watching Rumpole of the Bailey and a large number of UK crime dramas.....

The big difference between UK and US law is there’s no real concept of punitive damages. You sue for losses + expenses and legal costs, not punishment. Thus the blood-sucking parasites and chancers are kept at bay. I believe that in the rare case of punitive damages being awarded the state keeps it.

AIUI there’s two types of lawyers in the UK. The advocates "barristers" who are allowed to speak in courts are members of the Queen’s Council (QC) — (will be renamed the King's Council when the Queen dies soon). All other lawyers who do the majority of legal work are called "solicitors" who go through rigorous examinations for certification. Solicitors are the majority of High Street lawyers doing all the run-of-the-mill legal work; conveyencing (property sales), wills & probate, contracts, litigation, etc. if it goes to court they need to use a barrister.

To cut back on costs, there’s the concept of a Small Claims Court where the public can represent themselves for smallish amounts — claiming up to a couple of thousands of Pounds/dollars. No lawyers required and very low charges (a few quid) and restricted costs. Courts don’t like experienced people/companies bullying defendants and costs aren’t always awarded to the complaint. This means that hiring expensive lawyers for small claims may "win" but they will be loosing money.

Obvs I ain’t no lawyer.