Would you dive with someone who wouldn't share air if you were OOA?

[Jim Lapenta]

I'd dive with him yes as long as he understands it works both ways. Diving solo on a regular basis I plan my dives based on my air. If I'm with a student it's totally different. Then I'm expected to act as a back up air source for them. I do not count on them as one for me though. I have also been known when diving my own tanks to take them way below 500psi. Last night in the pool took one down to around 200.

When on boats however it has yet to be an issue as one hour dives on a reef in less than 50 ft of water don't come close to using half a tank let alone taking it down to 500. I've seen others do it but I'm usually back on with 1500-1800 or more for a one hour limit dive. It's also why if it's not deep ( say less than 80 feet) I have no problem taking a short fill if the op slips up. 2500? Fine with me.

 

[SparticleBrane]

if i'm diving with a new to ow buddy, i would ask about their air.

if i'm diving with an experienced but new to me buddy, no. i wouldn't ask and i'd be a bit insulted if they asked me, though i'd tell them.

Why would you feel insulted?

I personally don't see asking for someone's pressure as a measure of "not trusting" the buddy, or anything along those lines -- I'd ask just because I'm genuinely curious. It's nice to compare air consumption rates so everyone on the team has a good idea of where everyone else is.

I certainly wouldn't be insulted if anyone asked my for pressure. They ask, I answer, not a big deal.

 

[VooDooGasMan]

Papa is a diver that has delt with this his whole life. Don't go under with the impression that your buddy has your air, and you will never run out.

If you do and your buddy is out of reach or disapeard,

Bye bye world.

 

[Thalassamania]

Papa is a diver that has delt with this his whole life. Don't go under with the impression that your buddy has your air, and you will never run out.

If you do and your buddy is out of reach or disapeard,

Bye bye world.

I don't understand this "dealt with this his (her, my, it's) whole life." I've made more than 10,000 dives over the last 52 years and I can count the number of times that my buddy has been further away than arm's length on one hand, and in none of those cases was I ever in a position that I felt could not have reached the surface without giving it a second thought. Now I will grant that my situation is non-typical of diving today, but it is very typical of diving in the 1960s. I'm very thankful for my timewarp.

What has changed is the training for most divers. it went from 12 dives to 6 dives to 4 dives, to 2 dives and then crept back up to 4. But now everyone is scarred poodu-less of things that none of the divers who were trained in the 1950s and 1960s gave a second thought to (e.g. E.S.E., A.O.A., buddy responsibility, air sharing (and we used buddy breathing), buoyancy control, air to 190, 60 fpm ascent, etc.).

Are there more folks diving today? Yes. But, by-and-large, I get the impression that they are rather timid and frightened (with exceptions) about (at least) their early experiences. While the numbers may be up, it seems to me that the quality of each individual experience has dropped significantly ... and I think that's a shame. I remember my early dives as moments of wonder and awe, too many of today's divers seem to have early diving memories of frear and discomfort.

 

[Alex777]

<< Would you dive with someone who wouldn't share air if you were OOA? >>

If, by "dive with" you mean "buddy up with", the answer is obviously "No." How can there be any debate? You have a moral (and probably legal, but that's another thread) obligation to render assistance and share air, not because PADI says so or because OOA divers don't panic or because double fatalities are very rare, but BECAUSE YOU MADE A SOLEMN COMMITMENT WHEN YOU AGREED TO BUDDY UP. So, this hypothetical diver is actually repudiating the fundamental basis of your agreement.

If, by "dive with", you mean something other than buddying, then the answer is "Sure." If I have not clearly entered into a buddy arrangement, I am diving solo and have my own redundant gas source.

 

[Papa_Bear]

As a new diver I read this board for advice and learning but I must say to Papa Bear (do I need to genuflex in order to address you), regardless of your experience or opinion, your teaching methods have a lot to be desired if that is what your intentions are. "your not a diver until you have a 1000", what agency says that?!!

The agency says that, not a one! In fact most tell you you can get air after only a couple of dives! And you can without the air provider being sued, but that doesn't make you a diver, it makes you certified to buy air! Only a lot of time and becoming comfortable in the water and the gear will make you diver, diving makes you a diver! Doing dives under all conditions and learning how not to deal with what is tossed your way!

Next let me say this is the wrong question! It should be "Would you dive with someone who doesn't care about their air!" or their life. This section is about basic SCUBA and we get all the tech and cave divers talking about the rule of thirds and overhead environment diving. Not one agency will tell you that 1/3, ½. Or any other amount of air belongs to your buddy! If it does, then let him drag it along! What your air does give YOU the ability to go underwater and return to the starting point. Weather your save depends on many factors, in general Open Water diving is very safe, but the most dangerous thing in the water is your buddy! More buddies kill divers than any other factor in Open water diving except Heart disease. The fallowing was done by a lawyer and should be read. It re-enforces what I have been saying here!

It also address that SCUBA is safe! and Cites an average of 90 deaths a year!

The Fallowing article address many of the questions that have been asked here!

Scuba Diving Buddies: Rights, Obligations, and Liabilities
Phyllis Coleman

A common misconception is that scuba diving is dangerous; the reality is that divers are more likely to be hurt in their cars driving to the site than in an underwater accident. Arguably one reason it is so safe is the fact that–because of the foreign environment and risks it presents–participants are encouraged, at times even compelled, to pair up.

Buddies are expected to perform a variety of tasks including assisting in an emergency. However, the important issue of what happens when their failure to act results in death or serious injury has been all but ignored in the legal literature. Thus, this article explores whether a diver (or his heirs) can recover damages resulting from his partner's negligence.

Part I provides a succinct discussion of scuba diving. It contains a very brief history, summarizes basic training courses, and then highlights the sport’s growing popularity and safety. It also points out that, because many recreational divers never advance beyond novice status, it is even more important to have competent buddies. The need for an experienced partner is exacerbated due to the fact that people often wait years between dives so their own skills may have declined. Not surprisingly, as proficiency generally increases with experience, the person who has logged a greater number of–as well as more recent–dives is likely to be better prepared to help if something goes wrong.

Part II focuses on buddies. It looks at who they are, obligations the relationship creates, and solo diving as a possible alternative.

Part III analyzes the few existing appellate decisions and suggests at least three reasons for the scarcity of cases. First is the reality that buddies are ordinarily just that–friends or even relatives. Second is the pragmatic problem that, because a dive partner generally is not a "deep pocket," suing him seems pointless. A third hurdle is the legal doctrine that imputes the negligence of one joint venturer to all, preventing, or at least severely limiting, any damage award.

Finally, recognizing that the number of these suits is likely to grow as society becomes even more litigious, Part IV recommends steps divers can take to avoid large verdicts while minimizing risk to themselves and their buddies: (1) obtain insurance, (2) draft and sign specific liability releases, and (3) always properly perform the obligations of a buddy and carefully select qualified partners.

Part I – Scuba Diving

History
Cut to fit! Non important!

Popularity

The fact that approximately one million people learn to dive each year demonstrates that Americans are fascinated with the idea of swimming underwater. Although it is not known exactly how many certified divers there are, estimates are as high as 16 million in the United States alone. An additional 75 million said they would like to learn more about diving. Thus, according to a consumer study commissioned by the Diving Equipment and Marketing Association, it is possible to argue 45 percent of the population are either active divers or at least interested in the sport. On the other hand, many people get certified but may never (or very seldom) dive again.

Safety

Scuba diving is not dangerous if participants are careful and knowledgeable about potential difficulties they may encounter. This means divers need proper training and certifications in addition to well maintained equipment. Further, if too much time elapses between dives, experts strongly recommend taking a refresher course that includes practice in the water.

While accidents and deaths do occur, their frequency is minimal compared to the number of dives annually. Indeed, with so many divers, it is remarkable that, since 1980, fatalities have remained relatively constant, averaging only 90 per year. Of course, not all accident victims die; some are hurt. Nevertheless, divers actually suffer fewer injuries than participants in most other sports. According to the Divers Alert Network (DAN), although 50 years ago serious injuries and deaths were common, "[t]oday, they are rare and often seem to be associated with unsafe behaviors or hazardous conditions,” but conceding “they also occur without apparent cause."

Part II – Buddies

Basic scuba courses stress the importance of diving with a buddy. These people are often friends or relatives. However, some divers board a boat alone and are assigned a partner they have never met. But no matter what the personal relationship between them, buddies assume a variety of roles: responsibility for (1) checking and monitoring equipment before and throughout the dive, (2) creating and diving a safe plan, (3) sharing air if needed, (4) staying close, (5) untangling companions caught in debris, and (6) getting both to the surface in the event of an emergency.

Before leaving the boat, buddies should discuss the following:

* How and where will you enter the water?
* What is your course and destination?
* Anything special down there that either of you will want to linger over?
* Are you using dive computers or tables?
* How long will you stay down?
* What is the maximum depth?
* At what air pressure will you stop the dive?
* What will you do if you get separated?
* Where and how do you plan to exit the water?
* What procedures will you follow if there is an out-of-air emergency?

Naturally, not all divers agree that having a buddy is a good idea. In fact, an increasing number argue that going solo is actually safer because a panicked or less competent buddy puts both divers at risk. Further, while most scuba professionals continue to support the buddy system, others now defend going alone for a limited number of experienced divers. Most who make these arguments point out that the majority of divers are not really following the buddy system anyway because, at different times during the dive, they are too far apart to either recognize or help if an emergency occurs. One commentator suggests that

solo diving is more common than many would like to admit, and it's not, as they would have you believe, a dangerous and reckless form of diving. It is, however, an activity that shouldn't be conducted by just anyone. It requires . . . 110% competency and proficiency as well as a strong working knowledge of the particular area to be dived.

 

[Papa_Bear]

Second redacted part:

Part III – Case Analysis

Only a few appellate decisions address buddy liability. There are at least three possible reasons for this scarcity of case law. First, buddies are frequently friends or relatives, people a diver is unlikely to sue. Second is the pragmatic problem that, because a dive partner is probably not a "deep pocket," filing a legal action against him seems pointless. A third hurdle is the doctrine that imputes the negligence of one joint venturer to all, preventing, or at least severely limiting, damage awards. Nevertheless, some divers, or their heirs, have sued buddies either alone or as one defendant among others.

As is true in any negligence action, plaintiffs must prove duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages. The underlying legal analysis varies but the outcome is generally the same: even though judges acknowledge the relationship creates a duty and plaintiff suffered damage, the buddy escapes responsibility for the accident. Defendants typically seek this result by arguing (1) despite the connection between the parties that ordinarily would create a duty, plaintiff (or deceased) assumed the risks inherent in the sport, (2) defendant's actions did not breach his duty, or (3) the breach was not the proximate cause of the injury.

Duty

Deciding whether a person owes a duty to another requires an analysis of the link between them. For example, because buddies depend on one another to perform routine tasks such as equipment checks, as well as to provide assistance in an emergency, the law imposes a duty on these partners to (1) act reasonably and (2) not increase the risk associated with the sport.

Nevertheless, because judges view diving as an inherently dangerous activity, even if the relationship generally creates a duty, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk might bar recovery. Under this theory, "'by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury. . . .'"



It is important to note that panic – which, according to a recent study, affects more than half of divers on one or more occasions – is the main reason people die in underwater accidents. As was true in Yace, the majority of mishaps would not be catastrophic if the victims remain calm and follow their training. To impose liability, courts would have to hold that a diver has a duty to his partner not to panic. The judges concluded, "That, of course, we cannot do." Thus, this decision effectively insulates buddies from responsibility for all but the most egregious conduct.

Plaintiffs' attempt to invalidate the release was rejected. It did not violate public policy as it was merely a "'private, voluntary transaction[ ] in which one party, for a consideration, agrees to shoulder a risk which the law would otherwise have placed upon the other party. . . .'" To void such a clause it must involve a public interest which this did not as (1) scuba diving is not generally thought to be suitable for public regulation, (2) diving lessons are not a service of great importance and not a matter of practical necessity, and (3) customers did not place themselves under defendants' control. According to the court, Sulejmanagica "certainly had the option of not taking the class" and, "n view of the dangerous nature of this particular activity," the school could reasonably require students to sign a waiver as a condition to enrolling. Further, the document satisfied the typical requirements as it was "clear, unambiguous and explicit in expressing the intent of the parties."


Proximate Cause

Rasmussen v. Bendotti illustrates that even buddies who are related may be sued. Gene and Bonny Bendotti were married but, when she drowned while diving with him, her children sued their stepfather. They claimed his negligence in failing to reconnect his power inflator to his buoyancy compensator after an earlier dive led to their mother's death. The error was not discovered because the two did not adequately perform buddy and self-equipment checks. But almost as soon as they got in the water, Gene noticed the equipment problem and immediately surfaced. Unfortunately, Bonny apparently became entangled in a rope at the 40-foot level "perhaps while ascending herself." Seemingly unable to disentangle herself she drowned.

The Washington appellate court decided that, as they were buddies, "'Gene owed a duty to Bonny to act in the manner of a reasonably prudent diver.'" This conclusion was based on unchallenged findings that both had been trained never to dive alone because a partner can assist in an emergency such as occurred in Rasmussen.

The trial court also found it is standard practice to check equipment prior to each dive. If these inspections had been performed, Gene's unattached power inflator probably would have been discovered before he entered the water. Based on the duty owed by a diver to his buddy, and the uncontested finding that it was not performed, "the legal conclusion that Gene breached his duty to Bonny is inescapable." As an aside, although the court does not discuss it, Bonny also breached her duty to Gene. As his buddy, she was supposed to check his gear. Arguably her failure to do so led to her death.

Gene claimed his duty to his buddy ended based on the common law emergency doctrine which states that a person faced with a crisis should not be held to the same standards as someone given time for reflection and deliberation. However, this protection only applies when the defendant "undertakes the best course of action given an emergency not of his or her own making." Here, Gene himself created his predicament and thus his conduct had to be evaluated at the time he was obligated to check his equipment and not when he subsequently discovered his negligent omission and reacted to it. Under this analysis, the emergency did not discharge Gene's duty to Bonny. On the other hand, both Gene and Bonny created the problem and, therefore, under the reasoning in Lyon, she would not be able to recover or at least the amount would be reduced.

Nevertheless, Gene was not liable because – while he had a duty to Bonny which he breached – his negligence was not the proximate case of her death. Simply stated, the question was "if Gene had properly connected his power inflator would Bonny be alive today?" According to the judge, the connection between the breach and the death was too attenuated to conclude the answer was "yes." Because proximate cause is a mixed question of law and fact the appellate court deferred to the trial judge.

An expert had testified that there was no connection between either Gene's failure to attach his power inflator and Bonny's subsequent entanglement or between the loss of buddy contact and her death. Instead, he stated he believed the proximate cause of death was Bonny's failure to carry a dive knife.

No one knew how Bonny became entangled, why she was not able to free herself, or whether Gene could have saved her. Speculation that the result would have been different if Gene had been available to help is not sufficient to establish proximate cause. Contrast this with Tancredi where the issue was whether defendant breached its duty. In that Hawaii case, the judge based the decision on a finding that "it is probable" an assigned buddy would have shared air with Tancredi as soon as he indicated breathing difficulty and would have helped get him to the surface when his life could have been saved.


Part IV

Whatever the reason, American society seems to be growing ever more litigious. As part of this trend, and the fact that lawyers seem to sue everyone connected with an accident, it is likely that more buddies will find themselves named as defendants. This section suggests steps divers can take to avoid paying attorneys fees and large verdicts while minimizing risks of injuries to themselves and their buddies: (1) obtain insurance, (2) draft and sign specific liability releases, (3) carefully select competent partners and always properly perform the responsibilities of a buddy.

Insurance

There are actually several different ways to approach this issue. The first question is on whom to place responsibility for a diver's safety. One legitimate conclusion is that, because this is a voluntary recreational pursuit – one that many believe is dangerous – everyone must pay for his or her own injuries.


Liability releases

If insurance is not an option, having buddies sign waivers should minimize the number of lawsuits. This would require either creating specific releases or adding buddies to the list of people shielded from liability by the documents providers already require. Based on existing case law, such exculpatory clauses should be enforceable in most jurisdictions.

Moreover, if courts follow the theory discussed in Yace, buddies would not be liable unless their conduct was reckless or intentional and caused the injury. This is consistent with the law concerning waivers as they generally only shield people from responsibility for ordinary negligence. This is because courts fear that imposing liability in such circumstances "might well deter friends from voluntarily assisting one another in such potentially risky sports." However, buddies' responsibilities to each other arguably impose a duty that will be breached by failure to act as a reasonable partner would under the circumstances. Then the problem becomes determining what the "reasonable buddy" would have done. If, for example, as the court in Yace concluded, panic is inherent in the sport, he might have panicked and thus, as was true in that case, he would not be liable for any injuries that followed even without a release. A waiver merely provides an additional defense.

Be careful and choose wisely

Of course, the real answer is that each diver needs to be a responsible buddy who follows proper procedures at all times. In addition, he should select a buddy who is also competent, knowledgeable, and reliable.




Endnotes

 

[captain]

And some people wonder why a few of us love diving by ourselves when out for pleasure. Theres 3 of us that usually go together on trips all have been diving at least 15 years plus. All hold more than a Open Water Instructor Cert. We enter the water at the same time, go our separate ways, run into each other sometime during the dive and surprisingly end up back at the boat together go figure.

Yes, thats the way I like it.

 

[fisherdvm]

Yes, I would love to dive with such a person ... especially if they don't have a redundant airsource! I would sneak up behind them and shut off their air... Ha, ha, ha... Just to see them begging for my octo ... he, he, he, .... especially down at 90 plus feet ... ha, ha, ha...

Of course, that would be cruel...

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

I agree with whoever said that they would dive with someone like that, as long as they knew up front, that they were on their own. I would dive with someone like that, and I've buddied up with brand new divers who wouldn't have a clue how to share their air with me if I had some catastrophic failure with my air supply. It's no big deal. Just like any other dive, I keep a close eye on my gauges, a close eye on my buddy, and we dive.

I dive, I've jumped out of planes, flown ultralights, and done a lot of other fun and cool stuff because I'm willing to 100% accept responsibility for my own safety.

So, my personal answer is yes, I would dive with someone like that, and while I would appreciate knowing up front, before we splash, in the end it really makes little difference to me. If I had some catastrophic failure and needed to share air and my buddy refused, I would consider killing him for his air to be an act of self-defense.