Does being a dive buddy expose you to liability?

[Gombessa]

Good Samaritan laws are definitely applicable in this case and will protect you.

Just as an aside, let us not forget that a designated "buddy" is not a good Samaritan, and most likely not a bystander under rescue analysis. This of course doesn't apply if you're just diving off the same boat with someone else.

I'm pretty sure the DM/Rescue Diver cert issue has been explored in-depth previously, but iirc, once you initiate rescue, you would be held to the level of competence of a rescue diver and not an ordinary person? I'm sure a litigator will step in to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[scubadobadoo]

... I see very little difference between being a dive buddy and going motorcycle riding with someone.

I see some similarities but I also see some major differences.

The big difference is the course and training one takes to get scuba certified revolves around (in most cases) the BUDDY system from day one and that system as well as the promise to adhere to it, naturally lends itself to liability in ways that cycle riding never will.

 

[murdrcycle]

Just as an aside, let us not forget that a designated "buddy" is not a good Samaritan, and most likely not a bystander under rescue analysis. This of course doesn't apply if you're just diving off the same boat with someone else.

I think that they would be considered a good samaritan. They apply to anyone who isn't a medical or rescue professional. I was on the Board of Directors for a motorcycle club that had over 1,000 members across about 7 states. If we put on a motorcycle ride, someone went down, and we rendered assistance, as long as we don't render aid beyond our training we cannot be held liable. Additionally, if we did render aid beyond our training and it caused no harm, we also can't be held liable.

FYI - it was a sport bike group, so we had a lot of accidents.

I'm pretty sure the DM/Rescue Diver cert issue has been explored in-depth previously, but iirc, once you initiate rescue, you would be held to the level of competence of a rescue diver and not an ordinary person? I'm sure a litigator will step in to correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that with DM you are right, but with Rescue Diver you aren't. The difference is the "professional" designation, and as I understand it Rescue Diver isn't a professional designation. The other stipulation here, once again concerning Rescue Diver, is that you can only be held liable for providing assistance beyond your abilities. You aren't required to provide assitance up to and all inclusive of your abilities. *Edited* However, if you don't provide assistance up to and all inclusive of your abilities, you better hope that yo aren't having an affair with his wife or had nebulous business dealings with said victim, because I am sure that you will be investigated for negligent homicide or some such crime.

However, once you are a paid professional like a DM these may no longer apply.

 

[northen diver]

Good Samaritan laws are definitely applicable in this case and will protect you. For instance, if you come across a car crash and there are some injuries, you are under no legal obligation to help (i.e. if you just keep on going, you can't be sued, contrary to the final episode of Seinfeld).

It also protects the other way. If you decide to stop and lend assistance, as long as #1 you aren't a professional, #2 you didn't do anything to CAUSE the accident, and #3 you don't do anything beyond your skill level and training (i.e. performing an emergency trach with a swiss army knife simply because you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night) then you also can't be sued.



Yes and no. They have an obligation to not do anything above their skill level.

While I am not a lawyer, I am very active in the motorcycle community and we hold First Responder courses a few times a year in many different states. I do know the legal implications of riding with a group of people, and I see very little difference between being a dive buddy and going motorcycle riding with someone.

I think that any lawyer worth his/her salt would go to the Good Samaritan laws in a second.

Not quite.....


Under common law you have no general duty to act (except in some states, IF you are a currently trained responder such as a EMT, even IF you are OFF duty).

BUT, you CAN be sued in civil court for not acting.

Under civil law

Under civil law however, the duty to rescue is far more extensive. Any person above legal age, who sees another human being in peril, must take all reasonable steps to provide help. Failure to do so may result in prosecution. The only exclusion is that the person must not endanger her/his own life or that of others, while providing rescue.
In theory, this can mean that if a person finds someone in need of medical help, she/he must take all reasonable steps to seek medical care. Commonly the situation arises on an event of a traffic accident: other drivers and passers-by must take an action to help the injured without regard to possible personal reasons not to help (e.g. having no time, being in hurry) or ascertain that help has been requested from officials.

 

[fdog]

<snip>For instance, if you come across a car crash and there are some injuries, you are under no legal obligation to help (i.e. if you just keep on going, you can't be sued, contrary to the final episode of Seinfeld).

<snip>

Heh. Northen Diver beat me to it.

My attorney informed me long ago that a successful suit was a possibility of just this, not stopping to render aid, and is the reason I do not have fireman's license plates or an IAFF sticker on my vehicle.


All the best, James

 

[ClayJar]

How about if you're diving for fun on say a charter boat and you show your DM/Instructor or even Master Diver card as your proof of certification. Keep in mind that you're not specifically leading a dive or even calling the shots in planning a dive. Do you automatically assume a higher liability because you have a "high" level of certification and training?

If something happens on a dive boat that ends up with courts involved, I imagine one of the first things that will come up is "Who was on the boat?" That will very shortly be followed in discovery by "What were the qualifications of each person on this list?"

If you were a DM/Instructor out diving, and you only showed your AOW card, you may be able to escape being roped into babysitting, but if something *does* happen, they'll certainly know you were there and that you are a DM/Instructor. That does not necessarily mean that you're more liable for anything that happened, but it usually *does* mean your name won't be skipped on the list of people who end up involved in any court case. That's just life.

 

[murdrcycle]

Under civil law

Under civil law however, the duty to rescue is far more extensive. Any person above legal age, who sees another human being in peril, must take all reasonable steps to provide help. Failure to do so may result in prosecution. The only exclusion is that the person must not endanger her/his own life or that of others, while providing rescue.
In theory, this can mean that if a person finds someone in need of medical help, she/he must take all reasonable steps to seek medical care. Commonly the situation arises on an event of a traffic accident: other drivers and passers-by must take an action to help the injured without regard to possible personal reasons not to help (e.g. having no time, being in hurry) or ascertain that help has been requested from officials.

*Pertaining to the US only*

I don't know where you got this, but it just isn't true. After 5 years, literally thousands of rides and hundreds of accidents (yes, hundreds, some fatal), not one successful lawsuit was ever lodged.

Furthermore, at the beginning and end of every first responder course that I have ever attended (probably well over 20 at this point in 2 different states), they would state that you have absolutely no legal duty to aid in the case of an accident at any time under any circumstances. And for any Civil suit to be successful you can't just claim negligence, you have to prove that there is a preponderance of evidence that an indiviuals actions caused the death.

 

[Gombessa]

Not quite.....


Under common law you have no general duty to act (except in some states, IF you are a currently trained responder such as a EMT, even IF you are OFF duty).

BUT, you CAN be sued in civil court for not acting.

Under civil law

Under civil law however, the duty to rescue is far more extensive. Any person above legal age, who sees another human being in peril, must take all reasonable steps to provide help. Failure to do so may result in prosecution. The only exclusion is that the person must not endanger her/his own life or that of others, while providing rescue.
In theory, this can mean that if a person finds someone in need of medical help, she/he must take all reasonable steps to seek medical care. Commonly the situation arises on an event of a traffic accident: other drivers and passers-by must take an action to help the injured without regard to possible personal reasons not to help (e.g. having no time, being in hurry) or ascertain that help has been requested from officials.

Wait a minute. I think we're getting a little confused here. The Civil Law legal system (think France) is NOT the same as being sued in "civil court" (think private action, as opposed to prosecution under criminal law). The United States is a common law jurisdiction, not civil law (except for Louisiana), and does not adhere to any elevated duty to rescue. The "bystander has no duty to rescue" rule holds in most jurisdictions in the US, though there are some states which have "bad Samaritan" laws like the ones in Seinfeld. Under our common law system, you can still end up in criminal or civil court, but a "civil suit" is not governed by "Civil Law."

 

[Gombessa]

I think that they would be considered a good samaritan. They apply to anyone who isn't a medical or rescue professional. I was on the Board of Directors for a motorcycle club that had over 1,000 members across about 7 states. If we put on a motorcycle ride, someone went down, and we rendered assistance, as long as we don't render aid beyond our training we cannot be held liable. Additionally, if we did render aid beyond our training and it caused no harm, we also can't be held liable.

From what I was taught, a good samaritan is a bystander. Your daily motorcycle club rides may qualify. But as others have mentioned, a "dive buddy" system takes things at least one step farther. Training agencies teach OW divers that you never dive alone, and that you rely on your buddy in the event of an emergency. When you buddy up, you generally go through a dive plan, emergency procedure, etc. You say, "here is my octo, if you run out of air this is what you go for." That kind of relationship could very well create reliance, and either way takes your dive buddy out of the definition of a good samaritan.

If a random diver signaled OOA and grabbed for your octo, believe it or not under the general rule you could withhold it, and point and laugh as he drowned. No duty owed, no rescue required. But if you were dive buddies with the understanding that you're mutually there to help, you may have a problem if renege on that in the face of peril, especially if you could have rendered assistance without endangering yourself (just give the octo).

 

[murdrcycle]

Great insight to the nature of Good Samaritan laws (http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/85E4F114E318503185256570006E05B3):

1. and 2. A law enforcement officer, including a police officer, has a legal duty to provide aid to ill, injured, and distressed persons who are not in police custody during an emergency whether the law enforcement officer is on-duty or acting in a law enforcement capacity off-duty. Thus, the Good Samaritan Act does not apply to such officers.

- If the officer is off-duty and not acting in a law enforcement capacity, he is not required to help. Therefore, it is wise to assume that a DM who is off-duty and not acting as a DM on a particular dive will have no liability.


3. A correctional officer is not a peace officer and, therefore, does not have a legal duty to provide aid to ill, injured, and distressed persons. As a volunteer, a correctional officer would be covered under the Good Samaritan Act to the extent provided therein from liability for civil damages as a result of such care or treatment.

- Relates to a Rescue Diver

4. The standard of care required of law enforcement and correctional officers rendering emergency aid whether on-duty or off-duty is the same: to render such competence and skill as he or she possesses.

5. A law enforcement officer rendering emergency aid to ill, injured, or distressed persons on-duty or acting in a law enforcement capacity while off-duty is acting within the scope of his or her employment. The liability of the officer and his or her employing agency would, therefore, be subject to the terms and limitations of s. 768.28, F.S. A correctional officer providing emergency aid acts as a volunteer and would be protected by the Good Samaritan Act. The provisions of s. 768.28, F.S. (1988 Supp.), would not apply because the correctional officer is acting outside the scope of his or her employment.