Will action to an Instructor from one agency prompt action from another?

[DukeAMO]

I agree. I think the reaction you see from PADI on this issue is very clear cut. It's my opinion PADI can [correctly] say, our training program did not fail the student diver. The instructor lost count, left a diver behind = standards violation. That standards violation preceeded a fatality? You're expelled.

Regarding the issue of instructor crossover, the subject is already a NAUI Instructor Trainer.

Here's my personal take on this. I feel for this instructor, I really do. Maybe he's a great guy. He has invested his career into being a diving instructor. He's had a terrible experience. It's all very, very sad.

But he had a student die on an OW training dive, and he lost track of her under the water. That's simply unforgivable (professionally, at least). Would I want to take a training class with him, even through another agency? No way, no how. We hold instructors to higher standards and liability than other divers.

I think it's time for him to find a new occupation. It can still be in the diving world, but he should not continue training divers or instructor training. Sorry. Bad things happen to good people.

 

[boulderjohn]

Just as a reminder--in this incident we really don't know exactly what happened and what standards may or may not have been broken. It is very possible that there was more at play here than we realize.

 

[HIGHwing]

I know what he did last Summer.

 

[NAUIWOWI]

^^^^^^^I know I'm gonna regret asking. What did he do last summer?

 

[HIGHwing]

^^^^^^^I know I'm gonna regret asking. What did he do last summer?

It was more of an attempt at humor, perhaps poor.

Some people are dismissive of the fact/possibility of underwater witnesses to moments immediately before and after the accident. It's false that no one knows what happened as if the whole training dive is a mystery. That line of thinking is just not the case as it relates to this accident.

 

[NAUIWOWI]

It was more of a joke.

See, now I regret asking. One thing that I would like to see is the medical examiners report, as I am wondering if there was a medical issue involved (other than death by drowning). Highwing, very interesting point regarding legal issues in Virginia. Hadn't known that, now thinking of having an instructor to student ratio of 1:2, since I don't do this for a living.

 

[boulderjohn]

Just as a reminder--in this incident we really don't know exactly what happened and what standards may or may not have been broken.

Some people are dismissive of the fact/possibility of underwater witnesses to moments immediately before and after the accident. It's false that no one knows what happened as if the whole training dive is a mystery. That line of thinking is just not the case as it relates to this accident.

I didn't say that NO ONE knew what happened. I said the "WE" don't know what happened. By that I was referring to those participating in this and the other thread. It is possible that some of those participants actually do know, but for one reason or another they have chosen not to be forthcoming with that information.

 

[HIGHwing]

Highwing, very interesting point regarding legal issues in Virginia. Hadn't known that, now thinking of having an instructor to student ratio of 1:2, since I don't do this for a living.

It is interesting isn't it?? The more you read about pre-injury release forms as they pertain to public policy in The Old Dominion, you'll find the releases are not worth the toner on the page. Take a peek at Heitt v. Lake Barcroft (1992), you'll find that just about every law school in the state uses that case to teach law students about "Exculpatory Agreements". The Old Dominion Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the decision - no pre-injury releases unless you specifically detail the percentages of what you're assigning.

I think in this case a drunk 1st-year law student can get that form thrown out as a violation of public policy without any effort whatsoever. And then what? You have an instructor who is now unprotected, and simultaneously uninsured.

What's worse? Net all this out...
Instructor does what he's supposed to do and someone is killed. Insurance provides a settlement
Instructor violates standards and someone ends up injured. No insurance settlement possible.

Where does this leave the family in the case of the standard violating instructor?? Not in very good shape, I say...

 

[boulderjohn]

It is interesting isn't it?? The more you read about pre-injury release forms as they pertain to public policy in The Old Dominion, you'll find the releases are not worth the toner on the page. Take a peek at Heitt v. Lake Barcroft (1992), you'll find that just about every law school in the state uses that case to teach law students about "Exculpatory Agreements". The Old Dominion Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the decision - no pre-injury releases unless you specifically detail the percentages of what you're assigning.

These policies have never really protected anyone from negligent or substandard behavior, no matter what the wording. What they protect the instructor from is the frivolous lawsuit. They do a very good job of that, which means they do have value. The supposedly injured party needs to be able to demonstrate that that there was something wrong in what was done by the instructor or dive operator. If a problem arose because an instructor or dive master did not follow standards, then a lawsuit will go forward.

 

[HIGHwing]

These policies have never really protected anyone from negligent or substandard behavior, no matter what the wording. What they protect the instructor from is the frivolous lawsuit. They do a very good job of that, which means they do have value. The supposedly injured party needs to be able to demonstrate that that there was something wrong in what was done by the instructor or dive operator. If a problem arose because an instructor or dive master did not follow standards, then a lawsuit will go forward.

In your state that may be true, but checkout the law in Virginia. The law has been upheld religiously since 1890. Virginia is one of only three states in the Union to take this position. It is clear, and I've have Virginia lawyers review it, the form is against public policy as it does not stipulate percentages of risk/liability transferred. You'll find research into the cases as it pertains to Virginia law, leaves you stunned how quickly those forms completely invalid in our state.

There's a case v. Safeway where the lawyers created a pre-injury release with percentages and it was upheld by Virginia. Our legal system seems to conclude that risk v liability must be bargained similarly to the cost of the course.

It is possible that some of those participants actually do know, but for one reason or another they have chosen not to be forthcoming with that information.

I'm just waiting for someone to post the answer, it's going to happen. One of the downsides of abandoning a student with a downloadable air-integrated computer is that if you leave her behind, a lot of facts are being recorded.

Anyway... Back to our regular programming...