Waivers

[Andrew Richardson]

Are there any agencies offering certification without a waiver? Or more properly said, will to discuss alternatives to a waiver?

I work with non-profit group that requires all agencies it works with to forgo the waiver. They will provide evidence of insurance for all participants. Their argument is that "If an organization is not willing to take responsibility for its actions then we do not want to do business with them". There is some merit in this thinking, let me explain.

I realize that waivers are not iron clad and are only part of the evidence in a suit. I also realize that the waivers have been pushed by the insurance companies (who's motives are clear).

The organization I work with believes that participants should be required to acknowledge that they have had the risks fully explained and that they still choose to participate. Informed consent is far different from a waiver of liability and I dare say effective as evidence in a suit (but I am not a lawyer.)

I know we (if we dive) have signed these waivers. Have you ever stopped and thought about them? Most likely you just accept that there is no choice and sign the form. I think we, as consumers, should collectively say no more and tell the agencies to accept responsibility for your actions as we accept responsiblity for ours.

So, back to my question, now my rant is over, are there any agencies who have an open mind to waivers?

 

[Walter]

I agree with you, but I seriously doubt you'll find any agency willing to do business with you.

 

[bigken462]

If someone were to ask if they could opt out of the waiver, it would scare me to death to think they are looking for a easy lawsuit path. People are so fast to lay blame that the only thing they know to do when they get their feelings hurt is to call 1800 get your money.

Kenny

 

[alcina]

I think we, as consumers, should collectively say no more and tell the agencies to accept responsibility for your actions as we accept responsiblity for ours.

Wouldn't that be nice! But people who truly are willing to accept responsibility for their actions are few and far between.

We've all heard stories or know of an operator who has been sued because someone stubbed a toe on the way to the boat

Also things get a little muddled since the agency isn't actually doing the training itself. Perhaps you will be able to find a dive club or instructor who has a different approach to the standardized waivers?

It's an interesting topic, for sure.

 

[NudeDiver]

It's like having to get a social security number. Sure, it's optional. And yeah, it's definitely BULL****!!! However, trying to get by in normal life without one is impossible.

I think you will find the same to be true for dive operator/agency waivers of liability.

 

[Walter]

Perhaps you will be able to find a dive club or instructor who has a different approach to the standardized waivers?

If I found such an instructor, I'd be wondering what other standards he's willing to violate.

 

[Pearldiver07]

And even if the individual is willing to accept personal responsibility, will their next of kin in the event that he/she dies? It seems that this is even more rare.

In my opinion there is no reason for an organization to "require" no signing of releases for their people in this situation. I don't buy it. I assume that this question involves some sort of alliance between the not-for-profit and the training agency.

And by the way, one of our shop's students who is a lawyer did research this subject and found that the liability release and assumption of risk did hold up in Texas. Although this hasn't been fully tested in cases of gross negligence.

Best of luck, but I doubt that any reputable agency will allow instruction through their system without the required documentation. Will you find an instructor who is amenable? Maybe. But unless he/she violates the agency's requirements, you will only get trained, not certified. And as Walter said, would you trust an instructor that is already mis-representing documentation to get this opportunity?

 

[sphillips3]

It's not just the agencies, it is also the shop, boat owner, divemaster and instructor. Diving professionals (e.g. DM, Inst) and shops are required to carry professional liability insurance and as a part of maintaining the coverage we are required to get a waiver completed.

Speaking for myself, I will not teach anybody that refuses to sign waiver or tries to modify the waiver in any way - if you want the traning you get in accordance with my rules and my agency's rules. I'm not going to lose my house just because some non-profit thinks they are better than everybody else.

The waiver is not an absolute "get of of jail free" for the instructor or agency - in the event of gross negligance or a violation of standards (or any other reason the judge thinks of) the judge can elect to deny summary judgement but the waiver does indicate that the participant has been informed and acknowledges the risks. In a similar vein, the medical questionare puts the burden on the participant to disclose all relevant medical conditions - if there are any contra-indications to diving, then the participant has to get a fitness evaluation from a MD. Again, no medical clearance, no training.

 

[Charlie99]

Most likely you just accept that there is no choice and sign the form. I think we, as consumers, should collectively say no more and tell the agencies to accept responsibility for your actions as we accept responsiblity for ours.

You don't have to sign any waivers.

Dive boats and instructors don't have to do business with you.

Sounds fair to me.

------------------

In most states waivers only apply to lesser levels of negligence and don't apply to gross negligence or intentional, willful acts intended to harm. Accidents happen in scuba diving. Raising the bar a bit for getting damages from a service provider such as a dive boat, equipment rental shop, or instructor lowers the cost of those services to those of us that wish to use those services. Lawsuits raise costs, either directly to the service providers or indirectly through higher insurance premiums.

Leaving them liable for gross negligence while exempting them from nuisance suits sounds like a good tradeoff to me.

 

[tc]

Instructors are required to maintain insurance in order to maintain active teaching status with all the agencies I'm familiar with.

The first thing the insurance company asks for when they become aware of an accident or incident that the instructor was in any way involved with is a copy of the waiver, it's required by the terms of the policies. If you don't have one they won't represent or assist you in any way, because you've voided your coverage by failing to get the waiver.

Could an instructor teach without one- Sure. Right up till the first incident, then the insurance carrier would cancel their policy and they would lose their instructor status.

So, the question is- Is the amount of business your group is going to give the instructor worth the risk of their losing their instructor status/job/carreer depending on their status?

Notice that all this is without a lawsuit being filed- just the carrier becoming aware of a potential claim and discovering that the instructor failed to follow the terms of their policy. If a suit were filed then the instructor would be stuck with the attorney fees and cost of defense, doesn't matter if there is any basis to the suit- the lawyers still charge their fees regardless.

It's possible there's an optimist out there that would be willing to teach without the waiver- and I'd wish them the best of luck but I sure wouldn't take a class from them.