How serious a screw-up was this?

[matt_w]

Well guys, there is your answer. The DM personally set up the gear, which means he had a duty to ensure it was correct and functional.

I agree. This seems pretty clear. I would still check my own gear, but the DM does seem to have taken the responsibility and liability.

 

[Tortuga68]

All I can say is thank god I don't live or dive in the US

 

[Jim Lapenta]

The diver is never relieved of the responsibility of checking their gear. If anything the idea that someone else is going to set it up should throw red flags everywhere as a reminder that you cannot trust anyone but yourself with setting up your gear. It does not matter if shop policy is to set it up. If that says to you that you are not responsible for checking it stay out of the water. You have no business with a cert card. That demonstrates a clear disregard for basic safety procedures.

 

[tomfcrist]

Did they say they say you didn't need to do a buddy check? Or check your own gear? Or that they would turn the air on for you? Or not to touch your gear after they 'set it up' for you? Did they define what 'set it up' means?

You are grabbing for something to make your opinion seem correct.....It is not.

We have gone over this a few times, Yes a diver should check thier own gear. But your inability to admit that you are mistaken about the level of liability that the DM has in a case like this is freaking hilarious. There are many like you on this site, and im sure that you will stick to your guns till the end as your signature quote suggests, but it doesnt make you right. We can argue this till the end of time and you still wont get the point until it slaps you in the face(by becoming a DM, being complacent, and getting your a$$ sued).

 

[tomfcrist]

All I can say is thank god I don't live or dive in the US

Agreed.

 

[tomfcrist]

The diver is never relieved of the responsibility of checking their gear. If anything the idea that someone else is going to set it up should throw red flags everywhere as a reminder that you cannot trust anyone but yourself with setting up your gear. It does not matter if shop policy is to set it up. If that says to you that you are not responsible for checking it stay out of the water. You have no business with a cert card. That demonstrates a clear disregard for basic safety procedures.

Agreed. My personal take on this is "dont touch my sh!t".

 

[Tortuga68]

Sorry, I didn't realise you were the only one allowed to ask for further details on the OP

Correct or not, I still haven't seen any evidence to support your contention about the potential liability of DMs in these circumstances - just a lot of opinion (both for and against). So you'll have to forgive me if I don't change my mind just because you say I should, even though you are an instructor and claim to have done more boat dives than me

On the topic of my alleged 'complacency' I think you're confusing my opinion on responsibility with my personal attitude towards dive safety, both for myself and for the divers that are under my care when I'm working as a DMiT or guide (no, I don't 'set their gear up' for them, but I do try & check that they have their air, masks & fins on before they splash)

FYI this approach to argument is known as ad hominem tu quoque FYI, not to be confused with ad hominem abusive or ad hominem circumstantial

You can look them up in the link I provided to you earlier

 

[Kingpatzer]

Jim, if your point is that no diver should assume someone else has set their gear up correctly, you and I are in perfect agreement. Something I drill into my students is that it is their gear and they need to ensure it is in correct working order before getting near the water because it is their life on the line. But if you are arguing against the DM having liability based on this principle, then you miss the point. It doesn't matter that the diver had a responsibility also. The DM, acting as a professional, set up the gear and indicated the gear was ready to be dived, and he was wrong. That makes him liable to at least some degree. The only thing a jury would be discussing given these facts is the award amount and how much shared liability there is. There would be no discussion of if the DM had some liability.

It is my understanding that might save the DM were this to happen and go to court is that some areas limit damages based on what percentage of an event a person is responsible for. It could be argued that the DM, Diver and Buddy all had a responsibility to ensure the gear was working correctly, and that the DM's degree of liability was less than whatever that jurisdiction's threshold for damages happens to be. But I'd rather not bet my bank account that a jury would accept my version of how to slice and dice blame.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Correct or not, I still haven't seen any evidence to support your contention about the potential liability of DMs in these circumstances - just a lot of opinion (both for and against). So you'll have to forgive me if I don't change my mind just because you say I should, even though you are an instructor and claim to have done more boat dives than me

Tortuga68, by all means go to your nearest PADI shop and ask to peruse the back issues of the PADI publication "Undersea Journal." You will find a section in there about liability and risk management in nearly every issue for the last few years. It is filled with example cases taken from their files and includes plenty of information on the results of these cases. You are free to disregard what people who actually deal with liability in the dive industry are telling you about how it works. But your are arguing from a position that certainly seems ignorant of quite a bit of what was common information for my DM course. I believe you are simply wrong; moreover, I think a simple scan through any of a number of widely available publications will demonstrate that point to you. Your ability to cite rhetorical fallacies does not change that fact.

 

[shake-and-bake]

Did they say they say you didn't need to do a buddy check? Or check your own gear? Or that they would turn the air on for you? Or not to touch your gear after they 'set it up' for you? Did they define what 'set it up' means?

"Set-up" meant dive-ready condition. Plainly stated. Your other questions are irrelevant. If a professional assumes a duty, s/he has an obligation to perform that duty in a reasonably prudent manner. If s/he fails to do so, and the failure is a (not the sole) cause of injury, there will be liability. The diver is at fault as well, but now we're talking about proportionality. Juries decide that question.