Watson Murder Case - Discussion

[livinoz]

How could I do otherwise

I thought Barristers were noted for their..argumentative...streak? Or should I say debating skills?

Best get his thread back on topic I think or it will be closed down!


As I said above would you please let us read your article when it's completed? I'm sure it will give us food for thought.

 

[thanksforallthefish]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thanksforallthefish
I was of the opinion that once you were buddied with someone you had a legal responsibility to help them to the best of your ability and level of training providing that it did not put you or anyone else in danger.

This comes from the understanding that if you have first aid training and begin to render first aid to a casualty then you are obliged to continue to help to the limit of your training, until such time that someone with greater training is available to help, on the proviso that it does not put you or anyone else in danger.

If you do not render any help then you are under no obligation.


Simply being a buddy does not mean you have commenced to rescue. So I agree with what you say in the second and third paragraphs, but I don't think that is inconsistent with there not being a legal duty impose don a buddy to in fact commence rendering aid.

I agree simply being a buddy does not mean you have commenced to rescue, but it does imply you have accepted some responsibility toward the well being of your buddy and have agreed that you will help if the necessity arises.

This is the purpose of a buddy as defined by all teaching agencies, to be close enough to render assistance if needed.



BTW ... thank you very much for your input on this thread it has been very illuminating.

 

[Under-Exposed]

I thought Barristers were noted for their..argumentative...streak? Or should I say debating skills?

Best get his thread back on topic I think or it will be closed down!


As I said above would you please let us read your article when it's completed? I'm sure it will give us food for thought.

Did you say above? Must have missed it.

 

[Under-Exposed]

I thought Barristers were noted for their..argumentative...streak? Or should I say debating skills?

Best get his thread back on topic I think or it will be closed down!


As I said above would you please let us read your article when it's completed? I'm sure it will give us food for thought.

I see now. You must have added it after I had started my antepunultimate reply.

 

[Under-Exposed]

I agree simply being a buddy does not mean you have commenced to rescue, but it does imply you have accepted some responsibility toward the well being of your buddy and have agreed that you will help if the necessity arises.

This is the purpose of a buddy as defined by all teaching agencies, to be close enough to render assistance if needed.

I don't disagree with this, but I still think it creates a moral obligation rather than a legal duty.

 

[livinoz]

I agree simply being a buddy does not mean you have commenced to rescue, but it does imply you have accepted some responsibility toward the well being of your buddy and have agreed that you will help if the necessity arises.

This is the purpose of a buddy as defined by all teaching agencies, to be close enough to render assistance if needed.



BTW ... thank you very much for your input on this thread it has been very illuminating.

I guess it's subjective though isn't it? And the assistance might be anything from sharing air to dealing with someone who was "narced". IMHO, I think some people would be capable of rescuing another no matter what the circumstances, even if they were risking their own life, and others would not, no matter what training they'd had. I have a belief that mindset has much to do with it. I do like to think I'd attempt to rescue someone I was diving with but that would depend on the circumstances, the danger and my own abilities. I mean what is it that makes a good buddy? Don't you have to be aware of your own limitations?

 

[livinoz]

I see now. You must have added it after I had started my antepunultimate reply.

Sorry, edits are a nuisance.

 

[thanksforallthefish]

Sorry ... for me edits are a necessity

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I can only relate this to Duty of Care as it applies to First Aid. I have been instructed that certain relationships establish a Duty of Care. Examples stated are: People employed for the purpose of first aid, teachers and students, coaches and players, parent and child have a Duty of Care or responsibility to Care due to their relationship. Duty of Care is stated to be extinguished by danger to the first aider (I would assume you could insert rescuer). If you are walking down the street and someone collapses in front of you.... you do not have a Duty of Care until you begin to take care of them at which point you assume the Duty of Care.

I would think that since you have no control or input into the "instabuddy" relationship that would be equivalent to the stranger walking down the street as above.

I would suggest that the relationship between the Watsons does not fit this situation and there would be a Duty of Care.

My reasoning is that there is evidence that Gabe commited to a Duty of Care by assuring Tina and her parents of his willingness and ability to take care of her due to his experience and training. Gabe had influence and probably some control over Tina's decisision to go on that particular dive at that particular time. Gabe was aware of Tina's experience level and still CHOSE to be her buddy.

Based on the above I would suggest that there is a significant difference between liability of an "instabuddy" pairing and a pre established Buddy pairing. Would you mind commenting on this for me Underexposed?

No matter how badly I feel for Tina's loved ones their pain should not determine how the Laws of the Land are administered. I don't think they will be able to accept anything less than a finding of Murder punishment commusurate with that. The unfortunate thing is that anger, rage and seeking revenge can be self destroying.

Liv I think that this thread continues to be of significant value and is not in danger of being shut down because it is addressing issues related to divers and diver's responsibilities and there is no flaming occuring.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I guess it's subjective though isn't it? And the assistance might be anything from sharing air to dealing with someone who was "narced". IMHO, I think some people would be capable of rescuing another no matter what the circumstances, even if they were risking their own life, and others would not, no matter what training they'd had. I have a belief that mindset has much to do with it. I do like to think I'd attempt to rescue someone I was diving with but that would depend on the circumstances, the danger and my own abilities. I mean what is it that makes a good buddy? Don't you have to be aware of your own limitations?

I would agree with this Liv and I would suggest that the "mindset" changes with knowledge and experience. For good or bad, I have to acknowledge that my "mindset" changed after working in the Ambulance service for a while.