SCUBA - An inherently dangerous activity

[Snowbear]

let's not.

I am a participant in another "inherently dangerous" activity - horses. I have enough of the beasties so that if someone wants to join me on a trail ride or pack trip or have me go along and pack their moose out for them, I can. I also think it's fun to hook up the team to a sleigh and take the neighbors for a spin. Probably stupid, but since I don't charge for this, I just do a standard verbal spiel about "this is an inherantly dangerous activity - even the gentlest horse can unintentionally hurt or kill you. Please don't sue me if that happens." People I know who do this stuff for a living carry huge insurance policies and everyone has to sign a "I know I could die from this" waiver.

Fortunately my health insurance does not list equine or SCUBA activities as not covered. I was thinking I want to get back into flying ultralights, though - better check on that one. Nah - lack of insurance isn't going to stop me from doing it.

 

[Genesis]

1. You can't escape liability for an inherently dangerous activity
in most states.

2. In most states an inherently dangerous activity means strict
liability...not necessary to prove negligence. Examples are:
using explosives, high tension lines, steam boilers, and by statute
dog bites.

3. People that lose lawsuits don't have any money. To try and stick a
lawyer for every lawsuit that a jury didn't like would shut the
courthouse for all legal actions.

Think chess, not checkers

This is why defining this in statute is necessary.

If you define, in statute, that (1) its an inherently dangerous activity, (2) waivers are absolutely enforceable, and (3) the standard form for that is <X> in the statute, then you solve the lawsuit problem for diving.....

You also likely solve a big part of the "card collecting" problem at the same time.

I am thinking chess - as in "checkmate"

 

[Uncle Pug]

It will probably be some knuckle headed idea like this that invites the government to step in and regulate the inherently dangerous activity of scuba diving.

When all scuba regulators are outlawed only outlaws will have scuba regulators.

 

[TCDiver1]

... it isn't listed as such... but all activities that are so listed are excluded from coverage.

Really? The accidental D&D policy i have from my company specifically excludes dive activities. No doubt in my mind that i'm more likely to get smooshed driving to and from work but thats completely covered.

 

[IndigoBlue]

OK, so let's solve the problem of people playing the "lawsuit protection" game by demanding C-cards, and quit driving the demand for the debasement of training.

Let's get diving defined as an "inherently dangerous activity" in the law of the various states, and promote a uniform waiver (under statute) that absolutely bars such suits.

If such a waiver is signed, and a suit is filed anyway, the law can provide that all fees and costs of the person sued are recoverable from the person and counsel that bring the frivolous suit.

Poof - problem solved.

Now a landowner, boatowner, etc just must obtain a legitimately signed waiver from each participant. If they sign it, that's the end of the discussion. The only remaining debate is whether the person really did sign the waiver.

For these kinds of problems there are solutions.

There are activities that are inherently dangerous. Frankly, PADI and the rest do a good job of making the case that SCUBA is one of them - after all, you ARE intentionally putting yourself on life support to go in the water like this!

What 'ya think?

When someone solo dives, then scuba is inherently dangerous. But that is as of the result of an overt act of gross negligence (going solo).

When someone buddy dives with a trained, qualified buddy, scuba is no more dangerous, if not less dangerous, than driving a car.

Most fatalities, from every scientific survey that I have seen, happen when the victim was solo or separated from their buddy. These fatalities may not even have happened if a buddy were there.

I guess that mean Uncle Pug and I are on the same page, although possibly not from the same perspective.

 

[MechDiver]

This is why defining this in statute is necessary.

If you define, in statute, that (1) its an inherently dangerous activity, (2) waivers are absolutely enforceable, and (3) the standard form for that is <X> in the statute, then you solve the lawsuit problem for diving.....

You also likely solve a big part of the "card collecting" problem at the same time.

I am thinking chess - as in "checkmate"

This would solve nothing, create yet another useless government agency and waste yet more money.

It's a really stupid idea.

 

[Genesis]

This would solve nothing, create yet another useless government agency and waste yet more money.

It's a really stupid idea.

It would create nothing, except a definition in the statute that such suits are by definition frivolous, and that an executed waiver is actually enforceable - defined by statute.

Where did you see a government agency in this?

 

[herman]

let's not.

I am a participant in another "inherently dangerous" activity - horses.

When I saw this post, it reminded me of a sign I was at a local horse complex. It turns out that all but 6 states already have liability laws for horses. ( http://www.americanhorsemans.com/pages/states.htm ) I took a look at NC's law and would love to see a similar law for scuba. No wavers necessary, just put up the signage required by the statute and you are covered. I am sure there would still be law suits but they would be a lot harder to prove. It would be a good start to a much larger problem.

 

[MechDiver]

It would create nothing,

Where did you see a government agency in this?

You're kidding right? If you don't see "State Dept. of Scuba Regulation" all over this thing, I think you need to think about this a whole lot more.

 

[Genesis]

Exactly Herman.

I think we need to get a lobbying effort together to get the agencies behind this. There are a fair number of lawsuits in this industry over waivers and such, and it needs to be defined out by statute.

As you noted, there is precedent for this in the horse bizness.