Does being a dive buddy expose you to liability?

[ReefHound]

Peter, I'm also not aware of any special impact of spouses on the general duty to care in negligence, but I have heard that some states have spousal relationships falling into a "special relationship" as regarding the duty to rescue. That of course still wouldn't affect the general negligence claim. But just as a special gift to Teamcasa, if you live in one of those states, you'll be happy to know that diving with your spouse may expose you to even more liability than if you were diving with a stranger

I think the point is that it would be sorta like suing yourself if all your assets are joint assets.

 

[Gombessa]

I think the point is that it would be sorta like suing yourself if all your assets are joint assets.

Lol, well suits between spouses are definitely not an uncommon situation, but hopefully if you're diving with your spouse your rescue instincts would naturally be that much stronger!

 

[Peter Guy]

if you're diving with your spouse your rescue instincts would naturally be that much stronger!

Hmmm, might depend on the life insurance policy -- and perhaps the estate planning!

 

[Alex777]

Or maybe just how the dive vacation has gone ...

 

[Thalassamania]

The only way that you can induce liability on yourself is if you are acting in the capacity of your profession. A rescue diver doesn't count, and a DM only does if he begins to act as a DM. If he just sits there like any other OW bump on a log, then the legal area is truly gray indeed. I have provided legal reference to this in many previous posts.

I'm finally in Hawaii and my files have not yet arrived, so I will have to ask you to bear with me as I cite a case without a reference.

If memory serves: Two certified lifeguards (not Pros, amateurs) went to the beach wearing their orange trunks with patches. Thought it cool and chick-bait. A man drowned in their vicinity and they failed to attempt to effect a rescue. They were successfully sued, the theory was that if they represent themselves as people who have a certain duty they take on that duty especially if they possess special training that enables them to fulfill that duty.

Bottom line, when on a strictly recreational dive, I do not wear emblems and such, patch jackets are for dive shows. I do sometimes have four reflective stripes on my snorkel.

Unlikely.

If this were the case, logically there would be no explanation for the existence of a "Rescue Diver" certification.

It would not be a "reasonable" conclusion for a jury to find that a newly 'certified' open water diver is universally capable of ensuring the safety of a diver in distress.

It'd make for an interesting case. As plaintiff's witness I'd quote PADI (as Peter did above) and find similar language from all the other agencies to establish that ALL BUDDIES have that duty. As a defense witness I'd take your tack and push the concept of "within the limits of your training" (which might introduce a whiff of agency liability as I noted above). Be interesting to see how it would fall out ... but most likely it would not get to a verdict, these things are most often settled on the courtroom steps, especially if there is a hint of agency liability.

 

[AzAtty]

I'd be interested in seeing that case, Thal. PM the citation when you find it. I would not be surprised to discover that the case involved some sort of impersonation statute.

 

[Gombessa]

If memory serves: Two certified lifeguards (not Pros, amateurs) went to the beach wearing their orange trunks with patches. Thought it cool and chick-bait. A man drowned in their vicinity and they failed to attempt to effect a rescue. They were successfully sued, the theory was that if they represent themselves as people who have a certain duty they take on that duty especially if they possess special training that enables them to fulfill that duty.

One of the basic premises behind the duty that attaches on initiation of rescue is that one who initiates rescue may prevent others who would have also tried to rescue. There's some logic behind the idea that someone posing as a lifeguard but without acting may prevent others from attempting their own rescue (hey, if this lifeguard guy isn't doing anything, it can't possibly be safe for me to do anything).

 

[Thalassamania]

I'd be interested in seeing that case, Phil. PM the citation when you find it. I would not be surprised to discover that the case involved some sort of impersonation statute.

Could well be. The case is an old one and it's in my notes from the legal aspects lecture at an ITC I ran back in the early 1980s.