Wes Skiles' Widow Looking For 25 Million from Lamartek

[Rhone Man]

I am going to respectfully disagree, Pete. I kind of think this is a necessary catharsis of progress.

My beliefs are based on two core concepts: (i) ultimately, rebreathers are the future of diving - the question is how long the road is; and (ii) right now, proportionately, there are too many people dying whilst using rebreathers - not just old divers, or unfit divers, or inexperienced divers - but really good divers. Wes's unit may have been irrelevant to his death, but that has certainly not always been the case.

Ultimately because of the inevitable march of progress we will end up with cheaper, simpler and easier to use rebreathers. But that is a process. And unfortunately in every other field of human development progress comes at a human cost whilst we learn from our errors (just look at the early years of aviation and how astonishingly dangerous they were - today millions of people are transported thousands of miles every day in almost perfect safety; cars, moutaineering, etc. all went through the same journey). Deaths make people look long and hard at things, and find ways to make them safer and better.

It may not feel like it at the time - especially for the bereaved. But these are necessary steps along the way.

 

[dreamdive]

Dear Pete:

I read your response a couple of times. I could not help but feel that the underlying current of your message was still implying fault with the rebreather and rebreathers in general. So this is my take:

Especially in this case, it was the fault of the diver. His death occurred as a direct consequence of the decisions he made from days ago until he died! No, I am not going to play the game of "ohhhh, poor little so and so...he was such a great guy and did not deserve this...." I know I am going to get a lot of crap for this but so be it. At least I call a spade a spade.

I do agree about your point about the "scumbag(s)" (my term) of the industry who is/are trying to make a name for himself. I hope that after three losses in court, he finally will go away. Who am I talking about? He who does not like to be named in this or else he threatens with lawsuits.....give you a hint. His initials are A.D. and I am sure Mr. B.H. is standing right beside him.

 

[The Chairman]

I could not help but feel that the underlying current of your message was still implying fault with the rebreather and rebreathers in general.

Then you missed the point. The problem lies in trying to solve any of the challenges faced by rebreather divers with litigation. It's a distraction that none of the manufacturers need and it takes away resources, both time and money, that could be put to use in making rebreathers more robust and safer.

I saw the Hires yesterday at the NSS-CDS conference that was a couple of blocks or so away from Dive Rite. They were ecstatic that this was behind them. No, they weren't gloating about it, but they were indeed relieved as they should be. The CCR industry escaped death by jury in that West Palm courtroom. The entire Scuba industry owes them and their defense team a huge debt of gratitude for prevailing. No doubt, they had the truth on their side, so the odds were not stacked against them. But they held firm, protecting their good name and preserving our rights to dive as we see fit.

This verdict puts the onus of dive safety squarely on the shoulders of the me, the diver. That's how it should be. I would be happy to support a bill for diving similar to the Florida Equine Activity Providers Statute that protects anyone engaged in providing horses to the public from being sued for death and injury. Why not for diving? No need for even waivers if the law states that they, and they alone are responsible for their personal safety. You're making the decision to enter a hostile environment all by your self, so why hold others responsible?

Finally, rebreathers are indeed safer than they were. For the fastidious diver, they are safe enough. For the careless or irresponsible diver, they are death incarnate. Overall and unit specific training are incredibly important but they can not overcome a poor safety ethic. Only the rebreather pilot can prevent their own death. Anyone who doesn't feel that their rebreather is trying to kill them every time they are on it should probably go back to OC. That's my survival mechanism for diving any rebreather. Complacency kills. It's just a quicker route on a CCR.

 

[Bennno]

The CCR industry in the US escaped death by jury in that West Palm courtroom.

If the accindent had happend outside the US, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit. If the accident had happend on another unit, there probably would not have been a lawsuit either.

Finally, rebreathers are indeed safer than they were.

How so? I know that's the marketing spiel but what is making them safer?

 

[dreamdive]

"Only the rebreather pilot can prevent their own death. Anyone who doesn't feel that their rebreather is trying to kill them every time they are on it should probably go back to OC. That's my survival mechanism for diving any rebreather."

Pete, I totally agree with your first sentence. And your view and relationship to your rebreather is certainly one way of looking at it. But, I would like to present an alternative.

I do not have an adversarial relationship with my machine. Frankly, it saved me and my friends during some “hairy” situations. I also don’t believe that an inanimate object can have an intent or feeling. If something “wants/trying to kill me”, it needs to have intent.

What does try to kill me is I (we seem to agree on that) and the choices I make/made. As in this example: it would be I who chooses to dive a unit I am not certified on. It is I who either is ignorant or ignores the status of oxygen sensors. It is I who dives solo and without a bailout. It is I who ingests narcotics, barbiturates, etc and dives while under the influence. So it is I who tries to kill me ... and not my machine.

In regards to Benno's question:

Rebreathers continue to become safer in multiple ways:

starting with the diver:
- improving education allows a diver to make better decisions
- improving training: the old way focused on how to built a rebreather and to perform in-water skills. Newer programs focus on education and teaching divers other things that matter

the machine:
- decreasing failure points
- oxygen cells are lot more reliable than they used to be
- electronics are more reliable than they used to be
- adding constant mass flow (in the background) in a manual or automatic unit
- manufacturer check lists
- RMS

I am certainly missing a bunch. This is work in progress. For example, the new oxygen sensor from Poseidon may be another game changer. The development of different CO2 absorbent.

My personal favorite though:

CONTINUING EDUCATION - 20 years ago, there was very limited information available. A lot has changed in the understanding of CCR diving, it's technology, and teaching.....it will continue to change.

A lot can be said for experience, but it is not everything. There is no point teaching outdated material. What experience has taught us in pretty much every facet in life is that things change. And the best way to stay on top is by keeping an open mind and by learning continually.

 

[Divin' Ivan]

It's actually uplifting to see that the "jury" system worked as us "lawyers" predicted it would. The evidence wasn't too complicated and the jury was apparently able to follow the courts instructions. My point was and remains that the system is not broken. Florida has a "prevailing party fee" statute. Terri Skiles and her two children will be bankrupted by this law and the outcome. As I understand from a post on CDF the defense will be submitting a 500k cost bill for Ms. Skiles to pay. The lawyers for Ms Skiles will earn nothing for 5 years of work. To me potential outcomes such as this are substantial disincentives to filing a frivolous law suit. Not sure how you can deter frivolity any better than that

 

[docmartin]

...My point was and remains that the system is not broken.

What are you drinking? I'd like some, too. I guess when you are part of a broken system it's hard to see. A good outcome does not make your case. I read your earlier post that stated that our system is the best - far from it. You lack perspective. There is no other developed country with an entire class of attorneys that are ambulance chasers. The number of frivolous lawsuits is unmatched. They ruin good people every day. There are countless people making a living "slipping and falling" through life. Fortunately FL has a prevailing party fee statute, a basic feature of the legal systems of most industrialized nations. That you had to specially mention it speaks for itself. And yes, I am a "lawyer".
I don't take pleasure in Terri Siles and her two children being bankrupted as you state. It is rather sad. This lawsuit would have been a non-starter in most places.

 

[tridacna]

It's actually uplifting to see that the "jury" system worked as us "lawyers" predicted it would.

Explain the "quotation" marks? Was it not a jury? Are you not a real lawyer?

 

[drrich2]

"The lawyers for Ms Skiles will earn nothing for 5 years of work. To me potential outcomes such as this are substantial disincentives to filing a frivolous law suit. Not sure how you can deter frivolity any better than that"

Sounds good as far as it goes. I take it that to remain in business, they make sufficiently great profits off some such cases they win to make chasing 'long shots' worthwhile overall?

Richard.

 

[BRT]

It would be a lot better if the lawyers got the bill for the defense.