Whatever happened with "Drifting Dan?"

[Divin'Papaw]

They actually claimed, with straight faces, that "he assumed the risk of being left in the ocean" when he signed the release? That takes some balls. Seems like a pretty clear example of gross negligence, but I'm no lawyer.

 

[Scott L]

They actually claimed, with straight faces, that "he assumed the risk of being left in the ocean" when he signed the release? That takes some balls. Seems like a pretty clear example of gross negligence, but I'm no lawyer.

I betcha they take a roll-call now.

 

[Splash-X]

They actually claimed, with straight faces, that "he assumed the risk of being left in the ocean" when he signed the release? That takes some balls. Seems like a pretty clear example of gross negligence, but I'm no lawyer.

I have to wonder how much of the "legal" wording in the release forms we all sign would hold up in court. While we all assume there is a risk of being left at sea it would also be reasonable that a charter would make an attempt to locate you and follow procedure of notifying the Coast Guard.

 

[Divin'Papaw]

I have to wonder how much of the "legal" wording in the release forms we all sign would hold up in court. While we all assume there is a risk of being left at sea it would also be reasonable that a charter would make an attempt to locate you and follow procedure of notifying the Coast Guard.

I expect that, at a bare minimum, the boat would know that I'm not on-board! That's just a basic, no excuses expectation. Yes, you can get separated from the boat. That is what the releases should cover. But, as seems to be the case here, once they leave without discovering that I'm in the water, they've crossed into gross negligence and have failed their legal duty of care.

 

[Splash-X]

I agree. The waiver can easily cover seperation from the boat including bad weather, strong currents, OOA, etc but I would not expect the waiver to be the reason a boat not attempt to locate you.

 

[tc]

You folks seem to be assuming the "The boat" made the mistakes, they did not.

The reality is that a divemaster, employed by the group that chartered the boat, made the mistakes.

The ONLY mistake the captain made was trusting that the DM was doing his job.

Just because the newspaper or the defense claims something happened does not mean it's fact.

The fact that this case HASN'T settled and they want to go to trial tells me that there may be another side to this story.

 

[mikemill]

You folks seem to be assuming the "The boat" made the mistakes, they did not.

The reality is that a divemaster, employed by the group that chartered the boat, made the mistakes.

The ONLY mistake the captain made was trusting that the DM was doing his job.

Just because the newspaper or the defense claims something happened does not mean it's fact.

The fact that this case HASN'T settled and they want to go to trial tells me that there may be another side to this story.

Isn't the captain ultimately responsible though? How big of a boat is this? You'd think the captain or one of the mates would have done a simple head count regardless of what the DM said.

 

[Divin'Papaw]

You folks seem to be assuming the "The boat" made the mistakes, they did not.

The reality is that a divemaster, employed by the group that chartered the boat, made the mistakes.

The ONLY mistake the captain made was trusting that the DM was doing his job.

Just because the newspaper or the defense claims something happened does not mean it's fact.

The fact that this case HASN'T settled and they want to go to trial tells me that there may be another side to this story.

Actually, I was simply commenting on the statement in the article that you assume a risk of being left at sea when you sign the waiver. I think that's bunk. You do assume a risk of being separated. At the same time, the boat/crew/group leaders assume a responsibility of knowing you're gone, trying to find you and alerting the Coast Guard if you become separated.

My only assumption about this situation is that SOMEONE screwed up. I don't have a clue who that person is, but it's pretty clear that someone was grossly negligent.

 

[Splash-X]

Isn't the captain ultimately responsible though? How big of a boat is this? You'd think the captain or one of the mates would have done a simple head count regardless of what the DM said.

On most of the trips that I have been on the DM does a head count and the Captain (who is ultimately responsible for the boat an its passangers) calls out names. Even if it was the DM who was assigned to take roll call is it not the captain who shares responsiblity for the passangers under his care?

I'm not placing blame with anyone I'm just stating in general that no one is excluded from responsbility just because a diver signed a waiver.

 

[Scott L]

Actually, I was simply commenting on the statement in the article that you assume a risk of being left at sea when you sign the waiver. I think that's bunk. You do assume a risk of being separated. At the same time, the boat/crew/group leaders assume a responsibility of knowing you're gone, trying to find you and alerting the Coast Guard if you become separated.

My only assumption about this situation is that SOMEONE screwed up. I don't have a clue who that person is, but it's pretty clear that someone was grossly negligent.

I am under the assumption DM's do not normally carry insurance thus the plantiff's thrust toward the boatowner and his watercraft insurance policy. It certainly seems as though most captains and/or crew would do their own count in simliar situations for obvious reasons.