Once a DM always liable

[H2Andy]

So in your opinion, does this LAW prevent litigation? I ask because based on my reading, it does not....

it does not prevent litigation in that a lawsuit can be filed against you anyway.

however, as a defense, you will have the statute on your side. but you'll still
have to prove (it's your burden to prove a defense) that you fall under the
statute and that you are immune.

hopefully, this can take place at the motion to dismiss or summary judgment
stages (i.e. early on) but still involves lawyers and expenses.

it's so darned expensive to defend yourself that you can win and still come out
the loser.

 

[H2Andy]

The one thing I HATE about our legal system is that it's so grey, and right/wrong are generally not.

what people don't understand about any civil legal system is that it is, above all
else, a system for peaceful dispute resolution.

read that sentence a few times.

it's more important for civil cases that a dispute be resolved than for the "truth"
or "right" or "wrong" be established (which is why 96% of all civil cases settle
out of court)

that is its role in society.

criminal proceedings, being constitutionally guaranteed, are a different kettle
of fish. or should be, anyway.

as to our civil system, it has some significant problems. for me, the most
significant one is that most of the middle class has been priced out of the
legal system, and feel they are helpless.

basically, the only middle class and lower who can afford an attorney are
those who can get someone to work on a contingency basis, which means
a PI attorney.

everybody else has to pay for the attorney. large businesses can afford it.
public entities can afford it.

but the middle-class and small to medium businesses owned by them can not.

i think this fear is real, that a very large segment of our population is being
left behind by the system of dispute resolution currently in place.

 

[Aquanaut4ata]

it does not prevent litigation in that a lawsuit can be filed against you anyway.

however, as a defense, you will have the statute on your side. but you'll still
have to prove (it's your burden to prove a defense) that you fall under the
statute and that you are immune.

hopefully, this can take place at the motion to dismiss or summary judgment
stages (i.e. early on) but still involves lawyers and expenses.

it's so darned expensive to defend yourself that you can win and still come out
the loser.

My lawsuit story doesn't have much to do with diving, but I'll relate it, since it kind of supports what you're saying: I was in an auto accident in Sep 2003, where another driver ran a red light, and I t-boned him. Seemed cut & dried to me, the police, and the witness. He was at fault. He ran the light. Statute on my side? You bet. He still sued me. His claim was that I ran the light, and that even if I didn't, I didn't use due caution, and I should have avoided him. This spent a year and a half in Discovery/deposition, etc. My insurance company even called me once to say that they were thinking about settling, just because it might be cheaper than defending. He was asking for $80k in medical expenses plus punitive damages. I flatly refused to be party to a settlement, because I was NOT at fault, so the suit went to trial, 1.5 years later. May 2005. I won, but despite all the evidence in my favor, there was actually a holdout on the jury in his favor, so the decision was not unanimous. Didn't matter. I still won.
The moral of the story is: If someone thinks they can make people THINK you are at fault, you can be sued. You don't have to HAVE fault. If you are going to put yourself in a position of potential liability, you'd BETTER have insurance. I don't even want to think about the financial burden to my family, had I been uninsured. I don't know about most people, but I couldn't have afforded $55k in legal expenses.