What would you report on?

[Ken Kurtis]

Be careful how you say things [because it may have] legal implications have already been mentioned.

I've got to point out that I think (PERSONAL OPINION BASED ON EXPERIENCE - I'M NOT A LAWYER BUT I'VE PLAYED ONE ON TV) that this is one of the great myths of diving and talking/posting about accidents, that if you say something, you're suddenly going to be dragged into a case and maybe even named as a defendant and it'll cost you a lot of money so be quiet.

For those who don't already know, I occasionally do expert witness work in scuba litigation (usually defense) and I have never been involved with or heard of a single case where this has happened.

First of all, the lawyers already know all the names of all of the people directly and indirectly involved. They've got the passenger manifest, the crew names, the shjop owner, the employees, the resort operator, the dock workers, the manufacturer, etc., etc. If you've got some real information and involvement, to think that you can stay hidden is fantasy. (And the LAST thing you want to do is make it look like you've got something to hide.)

That's not to say they don't read these threads. I've been deposed before (Drifting Dan was one case that comes to mind but I don't remember the specific) and have been questioned about an Internet posting that may have been contrary to the position I took. In cases, like that, they're trying to use someone else (Wikipedia also often comes up) who they don't have to pay to discredit my position (or that of another expert). And both plaintiffs and defense might do this.

But the idea of somehow you'll be dragged into a case that you really have no connection with because you expressed an opinion I think simply doesn't happen. If anyone knows of a time that this did occur, I'd be curious/interested to read a post about that.

Although this isn't his specific area, maybe ChrisM (who IS a lawyer) can weigh in as well.

- Ken

 

[Bob DBF]

But the idea of somehow you'll be dragged into a case that you really have no connection with because you expressed an opinion i think simply doesn't happen. If anyone knows of a time that this did occur, I'd be curious/interested to read a post about that.

You certainly won't be dragged into a case if you have no connection with it, however the OP was involved with an incident and what he says here may have implications later on. With the heated debates and conjecture in A&I, a party to an incident would have to choose his words carefully and not get drawn into an argument.

I would probably submit information anonymously through one of my friends on the board and stay away of the thread, but that's just me. I have found I have no interest in reliving an event that I did not want to be part of in the first place.

Bob

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I certainly agree with you Ken.... a witness of and event stating a fact devoid of slander or ill intent is not likely to wind up in legal strife.

I think there is a difference between that and a person who was actually involved in some way. If your dive buddy is dead and an investigation is in process I think it is a different kettle of fish. I certainly wasn't going to post a statement that could potentially be misinterpreted and used against me. I provided as accurate information as I could to a couple people I trusted. When it got posted it was third party information and their interpretation of what I said. I certainly couldn't be held legally liable for what they said... I didn't have control of how they expressed themselves or presented the information. In truth I felt there were a few times the information was lost in translation a bit.

Of course we were told by the police not to reveal any information until the family had been notified. It took a couple days for that and for the information to get back to us.

JahJahWarrior told me to remember that this is just the internet and I didn't owe it to anybody online to do or post anything. Nobody who goes through one of these events should be pressured to do anything that increases their pain or damages their recovery. News flash.. forum members may want to know but they don't have a right to know.

I've said ti before and it bears repeating the best way to ensure we get those "in the know" to provide information so we can learn from these sad incidents is by being respectful and considerate when we post in A&I. If there is no fear of being attacked IMHO people will be more inclined to read and contribute information to A&I directly or indirectly through others.

 

[boulderjohn]

I once saw a video made by an attorney explaining why you never give a statement to the police about an incident in which you are involved. He explained that the police write their interpretation of what you said in their own words, so even if you sign that version, it may be worded in a way that can be interpreted differently than intended. When it is later interpreted that way and you say you didn't say that, your correction is perceived to be a lie. I saw that happen in a scuba fatality I investigated myself.

The same thing can also happen if you write the words yourself. Has anyone ever seen a ScubaBoard post that was ambiguous enough to be misinterpreted?

 

[Jax]

IMHO in the A&I forums if you don't have anything good to say shut your mouth people are hurting you never know who will read it mistakes happen

I disagree vehemently with this statement. You are making people responsible for other people's emotions and reactions.

All must be civil, but do not restrict free speech because of the distasteful aspects of the truth.

 

[Jax]

The same thing can also happen if you write the words yourself. Has anyone ever seen a ScubaBoard post that was ambiguous enough to be misinterpreted?

That never happens!

To paraphrase a police officer who now trains gun owners:

1. State your part (witness, assist, dive buddy, boat crew, etc)
2. Point out evidence.
3. Point out witnesses.
4. Say, "I will make a statement later officer, I am too shook-up right now, and wish to consult with a lawyer." Because anything you say can be used against you, and in a civil case.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

I certainly agree with you Ken.... a witness of an event stating a fact devoid of slander or ill intent is not likely to wind up in legal strife.

I think one of the confusing things is that we're mixing a gazillion metaphors here. Couple of things:

1. There seems to an impression that if someone is not at all involved as an eyewitness and you comment on the Internet, that somehow you'll incur liability in this case that has no relation to you that you wouldn't have had had you kept your mouth shut. Not true IMHO.

2. If you were an eyewitness, no one will know who you were and if you post on the Internet, you may reveal yourself when you otherwise could have stayed hidden and uninvolved. Not true. (The police/USCG/Coroner/Insurance will have already taken your statement, the lawyers all have copies, you're not anonymous.)

3. If you are an eyewitness and you express an opinion on the Internet about what happened, somehow if you're called to testify about what you saw, that opinion will come back to bite you in the butt. Also not true IMHO. What will most likely happen if the opinion is brought up or you try to offer it, one of the attorneys will stand and say, "Objection, your Honor. Calls for an expert opinion and this witness is not qualified as an expert in this Court." And that will be followed by "Sustained."

Something some of you may not realize is that you're not legally considered an Expert until the attorneys ask the Court to designate you as such. And the Court may not do so. Or may just designate you in certain areas and not others.

I was testifying in a case about a year ago and one thing I was doing was narrating a video of the dive for the jury. One of the issues was whether or not there was any current on the dive. My attorney asked me how the position of the fish in the video might tell us if there was current or not. As I started to answer, the other attorney objected and said I wasn't designated as an expert on fish. The two attorneys were back and forth for a moment (I wasn't asked anything directly by the judge) and the judge ruled that I couldn't comment on the fish behavior we were seeing. As the attorneys were walking back, the judge turned to me and said under his breath, "You're NOT an expert on fish, are you? " I said, "Actually, your Honor, I am, especially as it relates here." And then he said, "Oh. Well . . . I've already ruled." So just because you know stuff, the Court doesn't necessarily consider you an "expert."

Now where I think you could cause trouble for yourself - and this is also where the lines are being blurred - is if you post something slanderous/libelous about people involved and then THEY come after you for libel/slander. But that would be a separate action against you directly, not dragging you into the legal action upon which your made your comment.

The other thing that could possibly arise would be if you make a statement to the authorities, "They were feeling fine that day," and then you go post something that says, "They told me they were really sick that day," you will be questioned about the discrepancy. But again, the comment in and of itself doesn't create liability nor involvement that didn't previously exist.

I've said it before and it bears repeating the best way to ensure we get those "in the know" to provide information so we can learn from these sad incidents is by being respectful and considerate when we post in A&I. If there is no fear of being attacked IMHO people will be more inclined to read and contribute information to A&I directly or indirectly through others.

Hmmmm. Let me mull that one over and get back to you . . .


- Ken

 

[Littlerayray]

I disagree vehemently with this statement. You are making people responsible for other people's emotions and reactions.

All must be civil, but do not restrict free speech because of the distasteful aspects of the truth.

How and when did I make people responsible for other people's emotions
And there is a time and place for free speech and a time and place to shut your mouth
You wouldn't walk into a funeral parlor and start talking crap about the deceased would you I certainly hope not
So then why would you do it here

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I once saw a video made by an attorney explaining why you never give a statement to the police about an incident in which you are involved. He explained that the police write their interpretation of what you said in their own words, so even if you sign that version, it may be worded in a way that can be interpreted differently than intended. When it is later interpreted that way and you say you didn't say that, your correction is perceived to be a lie. I saw that happen in a scuba fatality I investigated myself.

The same thing can also happen if you write the words yourself. Has anyone ever seen a ScubaBoard post that was ambiguous enough to be misinterpreted?

Which is why I didn't personally post anything until the investigation was completed and we were absolved of any responsibility. When the ruling was handed down the family asked us to respect their wishes to keep it in the family.

I honestly feel all the appropriate facts were revealed in the thread. I see no reason to open old wounds by reactivating it. For a long time I wanted to "have my say publicly". I came to realize that would have no value. People who didn't believe or accept the "facts" as presented through my intermediaries would not all of a sudden accept or believe them because they came directly from me. No new lessons would be learned.

The purpose of A&I is to learn to be safer divers and avoid further incidents it is not supposed to be the place for people to blow their own horns and convince everyone how expert they are.

 

[AggieDiver]

To me, the key to any kind of "eyewitness" reporting is to clearly separate facts, observations, and conjecture. For instance, you can state as fact that you were there and saw the guy come out of the water having difficulty. You can state as an observation that his lips appeared blue or that he was breathing heavily. You can conjecture that he might have been having a cardiac event. But where people get in trouble and may get questions is when they present all three in one sentence together, without clearly defining what is fact, what is observation, and what is conjecture or opinion. For example, saying "I was on the boat when the diver came out of the water suffering from a cardiac event with blue lips" combines all three. If you instead said "I was on the boat when the diver came out of the water. He appeared to be having difficulty, as he was breathing very heavily. My assumption was that he may have been suffering from a cardiac event because his lips were blue"; then you have stated a fact, an observation, and an opinion/guess and defined each as such.

If you stick to that type of description of the event and try to not unnecessarily assign blame or responsibility to any of the parties involved, I suspect your input will be well received here or elsewhere.