Yukon tangent thread

[Jax]

Hoaty, do the boats in your area routinely call roll? I cannot remember if the Keys folks did during ITK. Anyone?

 

[Bubbletrubble]

I guess to contribute to the off topic"ness". More like abandoned would be the proper term. Sorry not delete. After years of being gone I could not log in, couldn't even remember my exact user name, old email was gone, and lost password failed through AOL. So not worth trying to reestablish an account 7 or 8 years old. This is what happens when you get old.

@divemaster dave: Just curious. In an early post in this thread you alluded to Wilbarger's negative comments regarding the now-defunct Dive Connections, Inc. (DCI). As most of us may remember, DCI was criticized on account of the diving fatality of the Univ. of Arizona police officer in 2009 and DCI eventually went out of business.

Did you have any relationship with Dive Connections, Inc. previously (beyond paying customer)? I realize that this isn't particularly germane to the Yukon incident, but it does tell us something about your background.

On a side note, the mother of the victim of this Yukon incident left a comment a few days ago at the bottom of the above linked article (even though it's a completely different scuba accident with different boats involved). She referred to "gross negligence" on the Humboldt that may have contributed to her son's death. When a victim's family member throws a term like that around, it makes it sound pretty likely there will be a lawsuit. Sad.

 

[divemaster dave]

Did you have any relationship with Dive Connections, Inc. previously (beyond paying customer)? I realize that this isn't particularly germane to the Yukon incident, but it does tell us something about your background.

Absolutely not. Probably more relevant topic for a PM don't you think??? Is this another attempt to discredit me? I am not a sock-puppet and not with former DCI.

Now we are forced to take this even more off topic. Last summer that news was the biggest scuba news on the West Coast. Of course I knew about it. Captain Wilbarger's comments were all over the news and they actually disgusted a bunch of friends of mine and we still bring it up today about how disrespectful that was. I was not on the water during that one and know as much as everyone else on here just from reading. Besides being a customer about twice I went to their going out of business sale and bought nothing. I do have horror stories about my experiences with them but that's for another thread but at this point probably irrelevant since they are gone. DCI has no interest in the San Diego scuba market so I don't even know why someone from that old company would be gaining from posting. Most of the guys were older and from what I know got out of diving all together.

I have no connection or friendship with anyone in that company or former company. Last I checked on their old dock all that stuff is gone and who knows where the employees are.

I wouldn't mind if a mod just deleted all this nonsense and accusation.

 

[ItsBruce]

I was going to read the entire thread before posting anything. However, after reading 120 posts, I can no longer contain myself.

First, I think roll calls are essential. Always. On my boat, where it is only two of us diving, I do a roll call. Me. My buddy. It may be excess, but "always" means "always."

Second, as a result, leaving anyone behind would require a lot of explanation for it not to be unforgivable. I suppose someone could answer "here" and then jump back in. I suppose someone could lie and answer for someone else. But beyond that, it should not happen.

Third, I'm inclined to think that having a buddy is likely to increase one's chance of surviving a serious mishap. That does not mean it will make a mishap survivable. And, it does not mean that I think all dives should be done with a buddy.

Fourth, except when a boat allows a diver aboard for a dive when it is clear that he is not qualified for that dive, I do not see it as the boat's responsibility if the diver dies as a result of a mishap (other than being left behind). A taxi driver who drives me to the beach is not responsible for what happens to me on a dive. A dive boat, at least in Southern California, is not much different. And, for those who say that is just a taxi, how about the Catalina Express boat which takes me to Avalon so I can go to the dive park to dive? Its a boat, so why shouldn't it be liable for injuries I sustain while at the dive park?

Fifth, regarding the particular incident here: Absent some very odd circumstance, I'd say leaving a diver/body behind is unforgivable. However, absent some evidence that the diver was alive and rescuable when the boat left, how could anyone possibly say that there is liability. Under California law, there is no liability unless a party's neglect was a "substantial factor" in causing the injury. That requires showing that the diver was alive and could have been rescued. The mere possibility that he was alive does not pass muster. And, if one cannot show more than that the diver might have been alive, one would be laughed out of court.

Now, I'll return to the thread. Sorry, if I've repeated something already said.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Absolutely not. Probably more relevant topic for a PM don't you think??? Is this another attempt to discredit me? I am not a sock-puppet and not with former DCI.

There's no need to be defensive. This was not an attempt to discredit you. It was simply a post to give you an opportunity to explain your background more fully. I thought you'd appreciate that considering this thread discussion. You've made some strong statements in this thread and have been a very active participant. At present, 46 of your 51 posts on ScubaBoard have been on this one thread. When an SB user comes out of nowhere and jumps in to the extent you have, people are entitled to ask about the user's background.

DCI has no interest in the San Diego scuba market so I don't even know why someone from that old company would be gaining from posting.

My main concern is that a former DCI employee or family/friend of DCI employee bore a grudge with Wilbarger.
We now know that you have no affiliation with DCI. Thanks.

 

[ItsBruce]

Of course the boat played 100% in the role of this fatality. They may not have been able to stop the initial accident but the death is on the Humboldt and that still could have been prevented. Lets say they were watching the bubbles for an overdue diver as is done by most of the boats in San Diego. Or even put another diver in the water to chase his bubbles to see why he is overdue like I have seen done by some of the boats in San Diego. They did none of this. Instead they left the dive site. Lets say they were watching bubbles and didn't have anyone to put in the water to assist but saw his bubbles abruptly stop and then never resume. I would think rescue attempts would begin immediately if not by them perhaps they could have called the Lifeguards an hour before they did when they actually initiated the MAYDAY. But again there was no boat there watching because they left, the diver laid on the bottom for over an hour.

I have been on the Humboldt once. Their safety procedures seemed lax and too laid back. Everything they seemed to do seemed like a joke and a party like they were not taking their jobs seriously. I won't be headed out with them to support their legal fund.

Lets put this in simpler terms. Lets say you go to the beach for a swim. You tell the lifeguard you are headed out and will be back in 30 minutes. Although he is not out there swimming with you he is still supposed to offer you some sort of safety. So then lets say the lifeguard forgets about you and that you went for a swim and you have been gone more than 30 minutes. Lets say he then takes off to lunch and comes back an hour later and you still haven' returned. You chances of survival if you had needed help, if you had some sort of accident just went down the tubes.

So yes the boat is at fault. Even if his chances of getting to the surface with help or being revived with CPR were 1,000,000 to 1. There was a chance and that was denied to him because there was no boat on the surface. This is gross negligence. And now a family has been destroyed. I do not know the diver but Robert most likely had parents, possibly siblings, maybe a wife or girlfriend or how about kids. He was also a veteran going to school on the GI bill. It is a tragedy that this also happened on 911, for which Robert served to protect our country and freedoms. Everyone here needs to think about that. The investigation and lawsuits will take years to complete.

It is times like this that remind me why I should read the whole thread before posting anything. If I had done so, I'd have bashed this post first. So, let me paraphrase the courts of California relative to the theory of liability. Remember, this is a paraphrase: "Nuts."

The law does not impose liability based on speculation or possibilities or a chance that something might have mattered.

 

[Thalassamania]

If you can raise "possibilities" to "the preponderance of evidence," you can win the case.

 

[ItsBruce]

If something like this happened in this case he could have drowned on the surface after struggling and then sank back down to the bottom. If he had a computer it will show this. If there was a dive boat on the dive site to serve as rescue or witness they would also be able to attest to this. But as was already established, the boat left the diver behind and created an unexcusable tragedy.

I really hate when I have to make posts like this ... Had it happened just like this, i.e. the dive boat saw it all, the captain would have been completely within his rights and the law to look and say "Darn, that's one unfortunate diver; how about them Lakers?," and done nothing else. California law imposes no duty to come to the aid of another unless one has caused the other to be in peril or has prevented another from doing so by acting as if he were going to render aid or is a "special relationship" with the victim, i.e. the victim's dive instructor.

 

[Thalassamania]

I believe that a "special relationship" does exist and thus there is a duty incumbent upon the divemaster to enter the water and attempt to rescue a distressed diver; and that there is a similar duty on the captain to assist the divemaster in doing so.

Not that there is any relationship to that in this particular case.

 

[Jax]

I really hate when I have to make posts like this ... Had it happened just like this, i.e. the dive boat saw it all, the captain would have been completely within his rights and the law to look and say "Darn, that's one unfortunate diver; how about them Lakers?," and done nothing else. California law imposes no duty to come to the aid of another unless one has caused the other to be in peril or has prevented another from doing so by acting as if he were going to render aid or is a "special relationship" with the victim, i.e. the victim's dive instructor.

So you're saying that California requires the diver to be responsible for his or herself? Whoa . . . what a concept!