SCUBA - An inherently dangerous activity

[Walter]

My initial reaction was "bad idea", but after reading Florida's law with regard to equine activities, it's looking better and better.

 

[Genesis]

Defining Scuba Diving as an inherently dangerous activity by statute literally throws it into the arena of things Big Brother wants to protect us from.

I understand what you want to accomplish but this would backfire horribly.

You're smart... I can't believe that you think this is the way to go about it.

You already have folks right here in this thread saying, "Yeah, lets get Gov'ment involved!" and you think that when little Johnny gets the snot bent out of him and can't sue somebody there won't end up being a *Johnny's Law* to regulate away the chance of anyone getting bent again in the inherently hazardous activity of scuba diving?

Pug, the equine industry has dealt with this. Horses are unpredictable animals. So are riders.

I have two friends (a couple) who just bought a big chunk of land and are in the process of setting up a boarding/riding area for people. They're doing to keep their own horses (they own several) and defray the costs.

I asked them about this, because I've seen the damage that a horse that gets spooked can do - and sometimes, its for no apparent reason. Another of my friends was trampled while attempting to inspect an injury on one of her horses a few weeks ago..... fortunately, she's ok, but it could have turned out REAL bad.

Ok, so take out the "inherently dangerous activity" words, and substitute "an activity with known and unknown risks which are inherently accepted by the participants." If those three words are a "buzzphrase" for you and others, they're not germane to the argument.

The point is that by defining away the liability problem, and providing ONE statutory form for liability releases, we make it all a LOT more reasonable.

I just got back from a trip where I was diving in a number of different places. I signed everything from - literally - a 4x6 piece of paper with two paragraphs on it (a simple release of all risks) to a three-page monster with an uncountable number of paragraphs, all of which I had to initial individually!

This is rediculous. One of the more onerous ones, Devil's Den, has one of the "initial every paragraph" releases, and then they also ban doubles but allow lights - in an overhead environment.

That's beyond stupid, but obviously, all these different places feel a differing need to cover their butts legally.

What I'm proposing is one standard that all dive industry folks in a given state must meet. One release. One declaration in the law that if you sign the release, whatever the F@#@ you do is your own problem.

This gets rid of all the BS arguments about shops not being able to sell parts for liability reasons, not selling gas for liabiltiy reasons (what if I want to paintball with that tank of air?), not wanting to take someone on a given boat trip, etc. And while some will say more people will die, I doubt it.

The truth is that its rather likely that fewer people will die. Why? Because now I have no reason to go "buy" a card to do a given dive or set of dives.

You and I often rail about the pizz-poor state of training that we have now. We see this one pretty much the same, although we have different solutions.

Mine is to force personal responsibility down people's throats, and make sure they KNOW that they (or their widow!) can't come back at the shop or anyone else for their misfortunes.

Personal responsibility is a lovely thing. So long as the LANDSHARKS can circle when there is an incident, one can avoid personal responsibility.

This is a proposal to cage the landsharks in the scuba industry.

Given the goal, and that it ain't about "three little words", what say you?

 

[Uncle Pug]

OK... I read the horse stuff... and what I saw was *inherent risk*. I don't have a problem with a law that recognizes that there is *inherent risk* involved with Scuba Diving and places the burden of responsibility on the individual who choses to engage in the activity.

But the idea of defining Scuba Diving as an inherently dangerous activity by statute is what I cannot understand.

BTW... I don't know for sure but your proposal might run into a problem with the Jones Act.

 

[tat2_to_dive]

Just a note on the lawsuit as I know all about it. I own a business that deals with it all day long and it is imposable to sign your right away to sue. You can not do it. I know this because my business has Release or waiver forms to fill out.

 

[Genesis]

OK... I read the horse stuff... and what I saw was *inherent risk*. I don't have a problem with a law that recognizes that there is *inherent risk* involved with Scuba Diving and places the burden of responsibility on the individual who choses to engage in the activity.

But the idea of defining Scuba Diving as an inherently dangerous activity by statute is what I cannot understand.

BTW... I don't know for sure but your proposal might run into a problem with the Jones Act.

The Jones Act game was tried by Murley's family. They failed; as a consequence there is case law on this, at least on the East Coast.

I don't think there's a problem there, quite frankly; the claim the Murley family attempted was tossed as diving does not fall under the Jones Act umbrella (so said the court), as it is not a matter of transport by sea.

That is, once you step off the boat, you lose the Jones Act's protection.

Makes sense to me, but IANAL. A statement of preemption could be made, and should hold up in state waters, and if you coupled that with a provision that a failed sut exposed the person bringing it to all fees and costs (by statute, not just the right to claim them but as an absolute duty) I suspect that given the case law you wouldn't see it attempted.

BTW in Florida at least dive boat releases appear to be fully enforceable, but that's due to case law decisions. That doesn't stop people from trying, of course.

A statute would, particularly if it provided that a failed attempt would cause the filer to end up with both side's attorney bills, and held the counsel bringing the action jointly responsible for them. That would prevent someone nearly (or actually) indigent bringing suit on a contingency basis (some hotshot lawyer willing to try to make a name for himself) since now there is somewhere to get the other side's fees from....

 

[scubasean]

The truth is that its rather likely that fewer people will die. Why? Because now I have no reason to go "buy" a card to do a given dive or set of dives.

I don't follow the argument that fewer people will die if you don't have to get a card...

And how does signing a waiver relieve you of having to have a card? If it does, then completely untrained divers will be diving in caves, merely because the release allowed the shop/boat, etc relief from liability....and when folks die in higher numbers, in will march the gov't....

I must be missing something....

 

[Uncle Pug]

So... are you willing to change the title of your thread and theatened legislation?

 

[Genesis]

I don't follow the argument that fewer people will die if you don't have to get a card...

And how does signing a waiver relieve you of having to have a card? If it does, then completely untrained divers will be diving in caves, merely because the release allowed the shop/boat, etc relief from liability....and when folks die in higher numbers, in will march the gov't....

I must be missing something....

If you had to sign a release that in bold print said that not only were you signing away your right to sue, but in addition the law provided that you and your next of kin couldn't possibly break the waiver, you might think twice.

As for the government marching in, why do you think they would? Sean, only 100 people (roughly) die diving a year right now in all incidents that DAN gets access to (which is most of them.)

This is FAR less risk than activities like riding a horse, playing soccer, skiing (snow or water, take your pick), recreationally fishing, etc.

 

[Genesis]

So... are you willing to change the title of your thread and theatened legislation?

To the extent that its warranted, sure. Like I said, the "three little words" that offend you aren't the point Pug. I don't think I CAN edit it though.

 

[bwerb]

I am particularly interested in exactly what is it that we as SCUBA divers fear about any sort of statute or government involvement with the sport?

This statement just boggles me...

This is a recreational activity. Darwin is alive and well. The statistical safety of Scuba Diving is well documented and when you remove the "bonehead factor" it get's even statistically safer. The government has a hard enough time figuring out the stuff they are supposed to be concerned with...roads, schools, airport security, environmental issues on and on and on...who in the world wants some nabob in the government who doesn't know a scuba tank from an oxygen bottle to start telling us what is and isn't best for us? If the problem is legal liabilites...let the lawyers argue about it...keep the government away from my regulators and diving please. This is beyond obvious. Bring back personal responsibility as the primary factor in peoples lives and we'd all be a lot better off.