Judge rules-Abandoned diver can sue charter company

[fairybasslet]

$4 million for 4 hours though?

that is just a starting point for negotiations. I'm pretty sure he will settle for less before or during the trial.

 

[wreckchick]

I am a firm believer that American society has gotten so litigious to make civil court unrecognizable to any of the founding fathers or earlier. However, I do believe that there are legitimate cases out there and this is one of them. The tort system can change the way segments of the country perform daily tasks and although I still laugh at the "Warning! HOT!" label on the top of my carry out coffee there is a very specific case that precipitated that addition. If suing one dive charter company in California and WINNING means that all dive boats know they are vulnerable to a lawsuit if they don't follow good roll call procedures than I think that's a good thing. You can't legislate common sense, but you can make people do the right thing against their will.

Rachel

 

[=C=]

I really don't think getting left out in the middle of the ocean is accounted for on an assumption of risk agreement.

woah... how you doin?

 

[hlsooner]

I don't think the guy really expects to get $4 million, as has been stated that is is merely an anchor in negotiations. But the guy is not seeking compensation for having to float on the surface for four hours. He is seeking compensation for the very real and high percentage chance, imposed upon him by the charter boat, that he would have never been found and died from exposure or other reasons from being lost at sea.

What is it we expect from our dive boats?
1. A Coast Guard approved and inspected vessel that is safe.
2. Transportation to the stated dive sites, and an evaluation of safe diving conditions before the captain puts divers in the water.
3. Safely retrieving all divers from the dive and accounting for everyone.
4. Safely transporting everyone back to the dock.

It's not hard to see that some of these basic expectations were not met on this unfortunate dive trip.

 

[=C=]

We actually had this happen on a dive boat in Egypt... Fortunately there were 3 boats at the dive loc and our missing man managed to hitch a ride back on another charter. He broke the tour operator's nose with his tank when he got back to the hotel in Hurgada.

I think some kind of response is required. But when you consider the options putting someone out of business for a mistake that could cost a life sounds fair to me.

-C

 

[Teamcasa]

First let me say I’m not a huge fan of this boat, not for the crew but for the speed, it is a slow boat. I have been on this boat 4 times and admittedly, it was recently. That said, leaving a dive site without a roll call is negligent at best.

The topic of this thread is Can you sue (in California) for being left behind. A California judge says yes. I think so as well, but to what end and how much, that’s up to the plaintiff, his/her attorney and the jury.

Should their be a limit? Should their be a fine? Other consequences for the Captain and/or DiveMaster?

 

[Night Diver]

I imagine the reason he is alleging his skin cancer claim is to prove some lasting physical injury from the experience. Historically you couldn't recover damages for emotional distress without some accompanying physical impact or injury. This is no longer the law in California but for lawyers, old habits die hard, and if the case goes to a jury his lawyer wants to be able to argue generally that the guy has permanent physical injuries from the exposure.

Unless you've sat in a jury room or participated in jury research where "fake" jury deliberations are recorded and observed, you almost can't imagine the insanity that goes on in there despite the jury instructions and admonitions. While logic and common sense suggest that the guy's cancerous lesions had little if anything to do with his 4 hours of sun exposure that day, if the judge lets that claim go to the jury lord only know what they'll do with it. Which I have to assume is why it's there, as silly as it sounds to us.

 

[mike_s]

I really don't think getting left out in the middle of the ocean is accounted for on an assumption of risk agreement. That was plain old bad divemastering.

True

BUT just like Jack in the Box was the safest place to eat after the E Coli outbreak they had because their safety measures were doubled,

Thats an interesting view you have on that situation...

you do know that 4 children died from the result of that E Coli outbreak? I'm sure their families have a different view on eating there...

this charter is probably the most thorough charter in SoCal now... $4 million for 4 hours though? .

So just how much is the "going rate" for being left in the ocean to die now days?

 

[covediver]

And I am sure some things changed after the incident. But now there is a roll call before you leave the dock, after every dive (verbal reply and face to face sighting with crewmember), and before leaving to return to port. A couple times I had to poke my face out of the the head because my muffled "Here!" from in there wasn't good enough. I doubt anything like that would happen again.

I ran ops as a divemaster out of ventura, santa barbara, channel islands, and port hueneme in the 1980s. The type of roll call with visual verification and affirmative response was SOP for the boats back then. And we never left anyone behind...some customers thought it was a pain in the rear but the dive shop owner chartering the boat insisted on it and trained his dm to do it that way. I stopped dm when he started chartering a certain blue hulled boat out of Ventura on which the skipper actively discouraged us from doing so...

 

[Hetland]

I really don't think getting left out in the middle of the ocean is accounted for on an assumption of risk agreement. That was plain old bad divemastering. BUT just like Jack in the Box was the safest place to eat after the E Coli outbreak they had because their safety measures were doubled, this charter is probably the most thorough charter in SoCal now... $4 million for 4 hours though? THAT just screams "sue happy" American. THIS is why my insurance rates are so high.

My insurance rates are high because insurance companies are greedy. Every year since Katrina my home-owners insurance has gone through the roof, despite the fact that I live in a house built in the 1920's, out of a flood area, and 10 miles from the nearest drop of water. I've also never made a single insurance claim in my entire life (not counting my medical/dental of course). It's the same for everyone else in my area. It doesn't matter that these same companies make HUGE profits every single year (with or without hurricanes). It's just like the drug companies that charge $5 a pill for something that costs .005 to make. They blame the high cost on litigation, when in reality, their marketing expenses outdistance both litigation and r&d expenses by light years.

Your insurance rates are so high because insurance companies can charge anything they want.