Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[Boatlawyer]

Doc-

I'd wager that every diver on this board with more than 100 dives would disagree with the position I've argued. Trouble is juries are not typically composed of serious divers.

This isn't a "wreck." A "wreck" implies the vessel sank while still in service, nobody engaged in a gimmicky public relations campaign to put it there as an "artifical reef." That's a significant difference in my view. And with all the activity on that "tourist attraction" is it really so unreasonable to inspect the vessel for cut chains?

The question is deeper than the conclusory statement that every diver takes his chances. Here you have what is arguably an underwater amusement park for which admission is charged.

 

[HowardE]

The question is deeper than the conclusory statement that every diver takes his chances. Here you have what is arguably an underwater amusement park for which admission is charged.

In that case. Every dive outing is a trip to an underwater amusement park?? Every time I go on a dive boat I am paying admission?

It would be a terrible thing for diving, if this is what we'd all be faced with.

 

[johnnyseko]

We all understand the risks involved from day one OW. We are responsible for ourselves.

Amusement park? This would be like getting on the roller coaster and unbuckling your seatbelt. Is the park at fault?

(remember the guy that stood up during the ride? oooof)

 

[Boatlawyer]

In that case. Every dive outing is a trip to an underwater amusement park?? Every time I go on a dive boat I am paying admission?

It would be a terrible thing for diving, if this is what we'd all be faced with.

Really? What dive boats in Fort Lauderdale have a separate $10 charge depending on the wreck you are diving?

 

[HowardE]

Really? What dive boats in Fort Lauderdale have a separate $10 charge depending on the wreck you are diving?

I never paid an extra $10 to dive the spiegel grove, except from one operator that has an SG fuel surcharge, because it's far away for them, and fuel is expensive for a long run like that.

Can you not dive the SG from a private boat? um... you can... no admission price either.

 

[Misplaced Priority]

imagine if Disney kept a ride open that killed a dozen people a year by arguing "it's our biggest money maker." .

??? The Spiegel Grove did not kill anyone.

 

[genenaples]

Really? What dive boats in Fort Lauderdale have a separate $10 charge depending on the wreck you are diving?

The $10 charge is Voluntary folks, even though the LDS say its mandatory, it is voluntary. Many people dive the Keys wrecks without the medallion. Yes you could get yelled at if your on the wreck without the medallion but no enforcement is out there.
Put that in your legal pipe and smoke it.

 

[Misplaced Priority]

I must say that I completely disagree with your apparent position.

It is beyond rational that any wreck on the bottom of the sea, much less one that has been rotated laterally by the force of a Category IV hurricane and subjected to the normal degradation and weakening of every load-bearing structure within it, could ever be maintained, by anyone - at any price - so as to constitute a "safe" playground for recreational divers.

Who is responsible for ensuring that Mt. Everest is 'safe' for climbers? Ought the more difficult pitches be gated off and chained shut so that the foolhardy might not attempt them? How about the winter storms that claimed the many lives documented by Jon Krakauer in his book "Into Thin Air"? Should permits to climb and Sherpa contracts become null and void if storms suddenly materialize?

Any notion at all of any "duty" on anyone's part, beyond that of the divers themselves, is a slippery slope. It is precisely what is closing off the caves in Florida to cave divers, because private land owners on whose land the cave openings exist are afraid of getting sued by diver's estates - when it was the divers themselves who held sole responsibility for getting themselves both into and back out of the caves.

The fact that this wreck was deliberately placed as an artificial reef means nothing in terms of risk management. It is no one's responsibility to ensure that it is safe for anyone. If a diver does not wish to incur risk, do not enter it. If you enter it, you de facto incur the risk.

To begin with an assumption that 'someone is responsible' for some negligence that resulted in this outcome, aside from the divers themselves, is IMHO a specious argument. The wrecks are there, just like Mt. Everest. They are what they are.

Dive them or not, the choice is up to (and ONLY to) each individual diver.

Regards,

Doc

Well Said, Thank You. Why must there always be someone to blame and therefore sue?

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Doc-

I'd wager that every diver on this board with more than 100 dives would disagree with the position I've argued. Trouble is juries are not typically composed of serious divers.

This isn't a "wreck." A "wreck" implies the vessel sank while still in service, nobody engaged in a gimmicky public relations campaign to put it there as an "artifical reef." That's a significant difference in my view. And with all the activity on that "tourist attraction" is it really so unreasonable to inspect the vessel for cut chains?

The question is deeper than the conclusory statement that every diver takes his chances. Here you have what is arguably an underwater amusement park for which admission is charged.

I suspect this is the key variance in our respective perspectives:

This is a complex structure over 500 feet long. It is comprised of innumerable enclosed spaces, passageways and farther below decks, wiring channels and trays, ducting, boilers, etc. As most of this is steel, it oxidizes in saltwater - it rusts at a predictable rate. It will weaken and collapse internally in an incremental progression until finally it collapses into a pile of plates on the bottom. No one can predict the rate of collapse, as it is exacerbated by hurricanes and storms.

Regardless of how this structure arrived on the bottom, it is irrational to suggest that it is an "amusement park for divers" for which admission is charged.

This is the genesis of the problem: if it IS an amusement park for recreational divers, then perhaps there may be a duty to protect the foolhardy from themselves. Yet even in ski resorts, which are somewhat analagous to 'natural' amusement parks for which a fee is charged, skiers still continue to ski into trees from time to time. Ski resorts protect themselves from lawsuits by indicating that skiers should ski within their personal limits.

If it is NOT, however, then no such duty would ever exist - again, regardless of how the structure found its way to the bottom.

I would note that it was never intended to be portrayed as an amusement park for divers. Anyone who would argue otherwise is arguing from an irrational or uninformed position regarding what happens to wrecks lying on the bottom of the ocean.

 

[J.R.]

Doc-

I'd wager that every diver on this board with more than 100 dives would disagree with the position I've argued. Trouble is juries are not typically composed of serious divers.

This isn't a "wreck." A "wreck" implies the vessel sank while still in service, nobody engaged in a gimmicky public relations campaign to put it there as an "artifical reef." That's a significant difference in my view. And with all the activity on that "tourist attraction" is it really so unreasonable to inspect the vessel for cut chains?

The question is deeper than the conclusory statement that every diver takes his chances. Here you have what is arguably an underwater amusement park for which admission is charged.

1: In other words... juries are not composed of a diver's peers. I've sat on a jury... my analysis of the system is that lawyers do not want thinking or intelligent people. They want people with as little subject knowledge as possible. This leaves the lawyers as the only "thinking" entities in the room. Between them and the judge 'facts' are presented according to how the arguement wishes to be presented. An interesting place to put people charged with being 'finders of fact'...

2: Defining a 'wreck'... ok... I'll bite. Let's assume that the term 'wreck' is a euphemism... it does not change the fact that it is a COMPLEX UNDERWATER STRUCTURE... indistinguishable in any practical way from a 'naturally occuring wreck' or a cavern structure.

The fact is that when the 'wreck' was prepared, it was done so with an understanding of the current 'best practices' of diving. I would argue that it was also preped with an assumption that those who did dive it would comply with the 'best practices' of diving when utilizing the structure.

One also has to ask the question, "Is their anything specifically unique about the SG that makes it MORE hazardous than the Doria... or Truk lagoon or any other existing structure that divers might choose to enter?"

3: No... the question is NOT deeper than "the conclusory statement that every diver takes his (or her) chances"... that is the question... the whole question and nothing but the question. To arbitrarily define a unique legal status to some structure while putting other into a 'non-letigious' category because they were "placed or constructed by God... who as yet we haven't found a way to sue"... is, bluntly... splitting the hair for self serving purposes.

Grumble... grumble... grumble...

Oh... and as to the 'amusment park' anology... crap. There are books, movies, maps, web-sites, etc. the identify locations, specifications, etc., etc. for a whole panolpy of high risk dive environments. SG is just one of many... no different in function... only in concept.