Yukon tangent thread

[divemaster dave]

Divemaster Dave is not an active divemaster. Got it.

DC

You probably don't know this but if you lapse on dues or insurance you are inactive. So it would probably cost me $400 to be active and for what? To satisfy my SB login? I don't use the card, don't teach, not on a boat. No point. Except that maybe mrfixitchapman can read a post without scratching his head.

Also not active in the military anymore but my ID still says SFC and my old buddies still call me by rank.

 

[mrfixitchapman]

I got told.

DC

 

[JahJahwarrior]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Attacks towards other users are not tolerated, nor are they respectful to the deceased. Further attacks will warrant temporary or permanent thread bans.

---

 

[ItsBruce]

I think that my various posts have explained why I do not see any legal liability here. To summarize, for there to be legal liability, certain elements must all be proved. One is that there is a duty. Another is that a breach of that duty was a substantial factor in causing the injury. If one or the other is not proved, there is no legal liability.

I do not see a court finding a duty to either prevent the particular dive or to rescue a distressed diver, especially if the distressed diver has not surfaced. I do, however, see a court finding a duty not to leave a diver behind.

Assuming the court says there is a duty to have prevented the diver from diving without a buddy, I have a hard time believing it would even let a jury consider if that breach was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's death. An expert on diving would have to testify that to a scientific certainty, the presence of a buddy would have prevented the diver's death. Anything less than that, e.g. it might have prevented the dive's death, would not even be admissible in evidence.

Assuming the court says there is a duty to rescue the diver, one would have to prove that he could have been rescued. One would need evidence that the dive had not died prior to the time that (1) someone should reasonably have figured out that he was in trouble, (2) someone could have located him, and (3) someone could have rescued him. That is very tough, but maybe his dive computer might help.

As far as whether a breach of the duty not to leave a diver behind results in liability, one would need to prove the diver was alive at the point the boat left, Otherwise, all you have is the boat leaving a dead body behind. Terrible though that is, it is not a basis for liability.

Now, for anyone who says the dive boat / operator / DM is liable, please provide a reasoned analysis. There is no need to say that leaving a diver behind is inexcusable. I'm pretty much in agreement there. However, excusable or not, that does not satisfy all of the elements necessary for liability.

 

[ItsBruce]

If you were not able to assist with the proper mind set in an emergency perhaps you need additional training or watch the next few incidents until you can grasp the proper procedures or descriptions when talking to law enforcement. Anyone in an incident who is not helping is hindering. If you caused a delay in the response of emergency personnel and you were unsure what you were doing you should have handed the phone or radio off to someone with more experience or a clearer mind.

This comment is an example of the problem with speaking in absolutes. It applies pretty well when there are others who can assist and can do it better than you. But, if there is no one else, ... Well, I've got a problem with that.

Unless you caused the situation or are in a "special relationship" (see my prior posts), you can just stand there and watch someone bleed to death or drown. I find it hard to believe anyone would urge you to watch someone bleed to death or drown just because you can't assist with the proper mind set. If I'm the victim and there is no one else to help me, I'd rather have you do your best and fail than do nothing.

 

[Thalassamania]

I think that my various posts have explained why I do not see any legal liability here. To summarize, for there to be legal liability, certain elements must all be proved. One is that there is a duty. Another is that a breach of that duty was a substantial factor in causing the injury. If one or the other is not proved, there is no legal liability.

I do not see a court finding a duty to either prevent the particular dive or to rescue a distressed diver, especially if the distressed diver has not surfaced. I do, however, see a court finding a duty not to leave a diver behind.

Assuming the court says there is a duty to have prevented the diver from diving without a buddy, I have a hard time believing it would even let a jury consider if that breach was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's death. An expert on diving would have to testify that to a scientific certainty, the presence of a buddy would have prevented the diver's death. Anything less than that, e.g. it might have prevented the dive's death, would not even be admissible in evidence.

Assuming the court says there is a duty to rescue the diver, one would have to prove that he could have been rescued. One would need evidence that the dive had not died prior to the time that (1) someone should reasonably have figured out that he was in trouble, (2) someone could have located him, and (3) someone could have rescued him. That is very tough, but maybe his dive computer might help.

As far as whether a breach of the duty not to leave a diver behind results in liability, one would need to prove the diver was alive at the point the boat left, Otherwise, all you have is the boat leaving a dead body behind. Terrible though that is, it is not a basis for liability.

Now, for anyone who says the dive boat / operator / DM is liable, please provide a reasoned analysis. There is no need to say that leaving a diver behind is inexcusable. I'm pretty much in agreement there. However, excusable or not, that does not satisfy all of the elements necessary for liability.

That's all real nice, but it is, I fear, wishful thinking. It is perhaps the way the law should go, but it is not the way in which I've often seen it flow. Leaving a diver behind is an unusual event. Having a diver die is an unusual event. What do you think the odds are of having two such unusual events occur without a connection?

That, I suspect, would be enough to make the case.

 

[Cruisin Home]

this thread seems to be turning into whether or not the boat can be proven negligent contributory to the diver's death. Ok lets ask a question:

What was the bottom time of diver when boat left? If it was an absurd amount given depth/Al80 then it's hard to prove that they had a hand in his death.

On the other hand the boat's lawyer could put up a cloud of doubt re the divers choice to dive solo without redundant gas supply on a moderately deep dive.

Anybody, particularly those out there that day such as dirtdiver, know the answer to the question above?

 

[Tortuga68]

I guess I have to spell out "living parents" or it's too hard to figure out

Your meaning was pefectly clear, it's your logic I'm having trouble with. Whether his parents are living or not would be easy to prove beyond doubt; whether the boat contributed to his death - which you seem so sure about - will not

 

[ZenDiver.3D]

That's on you.
If you were not able to assist with the proper mind set in an emergency perhaps you need additional training or watch the next few incidents until you can grasp the proper procedures or descriptions when talking to law enforcement. Anyone in an incident who is not helping is hindering. If you caused a delay in the response of emergency personnel and you were unsure what you were doing you should have handed the phone or radio off to someone with more experience or a clearer mind.

That is absolutely absurd. Emergency situations are fraught with adrenaline and fear. Even the most experienced EMT's, and ER personnel have trouble dealing with this type of situation. A layperson who is available and willing to help in an emergency is more than encouraged to do so, unless or until someone more qualified can be there and take over. Your above statements are ridiculous, condescending, and flat out wrong. Anyone can Monday morning quarterback and do it better then.

Dave:

Why don't you just tell us why you have a grudge against the boat and/or operators and then maybe we can understand why you ignore common sense and continue to beat a dead horse?

Thanks.

You do seem awfully out to persecute them. (note, I meant persecute)

Wait for the report right. At least partially. There is no way to be 0% liable here.



No grudge against anyone. I am pissed about the entire incident. Perhaps it hits the diving community here harder since this is home and the death was here. I guess I can take the stop whining perspective next time when it is in your area and in your community.

OK, if it will keep you from making overbearing statements.

Divemaster Dave is not an active divemaster. Got it.

DC

Ahh.

You probably don't know this but if you lapse on dues or insurance you are inactive. So it would probably cost me $400 to be active and for what? To satisfy my SB login? I don't use the card, don't teach, not on a boat. No point. Except that maybe mrfixitchapman can read a post without scratching his head.

Also not active in the military anymore but my ID still says SFC and my old buddies still call me by rank.

Old Glory Days names are sweet, but you don't go around introducing yourself as that old titleholder, still, unless you still hold the position.

 

[N2DeepInAz]

Stopped by the infamous Humboldt early this morning to have a look around and walked around the dock while they were loading passengers.

The Captain that was in charge during the accident is already back to work and the death certificate isn't even dry, it hasn't been a full week yet. I would think this person would be on leave until the investigation was done and cleared them of wrongdoing. Or perhaps the trauma of being involved in a death would require some time away from the job for the sake of mental stability. In any other job the person would be on leave if involved in a death until cleared. This seems quite disrespectful to the family and diving community here.

Wow Dave. What's your agenda here really? Are you that bored or do you really have an axe to grind? Now you're turning into a stalker who's lurking around the docks so you can gather 'heresay' and post it on the internet. WOW! Do you need a non-computer based hobby to occupy your time?

Some people are maybe a little more mentally resilient than perhaps you would be and can return to work because they can handle it. You're acting like the deceased diver died in the hands of the boat ops which simply is not the case. Now, you're just acting plain creepy man. Let it go, step away from the computer and wait for the report to come out with facts. Then discuss those facts.

If you're such a great, phenomenal 'inactive divemaster', then perhaps you need to pay your dues and go save some lives "in your backyard". Put up or shut up! Stop talking about it on the internet and do something about it.