Should SCUBA divers / the Diving industry be answerable for their actions legally?

[Valwood1]

well ... i think legal action should be taken out of the equation if at all possible

i worry that if they start "charging" people for rescue services, everything will get scrutinized ... and you usually get in trouble for some dumb action on your part at some point in the chain ... which would mean we'd all be liable at some point

i'd rather have the system available to help on a "no-fault" basis ...

I support H2Andy's view.

The problem with a subjective standard such as "You pay if you do something stupid" is that it is . . . subjective. Who makes the determination of "stupid", especially since government is most expert in finding "stupidity" or other faults in hindsight.

 

[mkutyna]

Considering that, except for fuel, most of the costs are for personnel and equipment and you have to pay for those whether they sit idle or not. It's a resource that's available to everyone, and costs they same whether used or not, then everyone should split the cost.

Not necessarily. Many SaR teams are on-call so aside from training, meetings and patrols they aren't getting the same amount of pay that they would be during a search.

Also, there's the wear and tear on the helicopters airplanes and boats which can be pretty substantial depending on how many hours they would be out searching. For this, I'm talking about things like airplanes needing engine overhauls every X number of flight hours and stuff like that. These craft are definitely being used a lot more during a search than during their normal day to day operations.

Don't underestimate the fuel costs. Say 6 craft are searching for a person for 3 days almost non-stop. That's quite a bit of fuel.

At any rate, this guy is very lucky being lost twice and recovered both times. We've heard of quite a few people that were lost once and never recovered unfortunately.

 

[tc_rain]

People need to start accepting responsibility for their own actions and keep the legal system out of things. Lawyers have screwed things up enough in the US as it is. To slightly regress here, I find it amazing how things are different in other countries. For example when you visit Coconuts in Cozumel they have a pretty shear drop off to the rocky beach of the ocean. The only thing preventing someone from falling is common sense and a single strand of rope. (For those who are unfamiliar with Coconuts, it is basically a bar). Now if that same business were in the US with the same conditions, they would have a 12-foot high chain link fence with a sign posted every 12 inches stating the fall could be fatal and the establishment is not responsible. In my opinion, if you get drunk and fall off the cliff it is your own fault nobody else’s. If you survive, you shouldn’t attempt to sue the establishment; if you die, your family shouldn’t either. It was your dumb ass that fell because of your stupidity. The same should apply to this circumstance. He was saved once and warned. If he needs saved again case because he did not heed the warnings, he needs to be billed for the rescue. The taxpayers do not need to foot the bill more then once because he is ignorant. They also don’t need lawyers involved unless he tries to fight the bill and he decides to take it to court. In that case, if he loses the case he is responsible for the associated fees. In addition, as long as the charter warned him of the issue with his equipment, the charter should not hold any responsibility either. He was the idiot that decided to ignore everyone; therefore, accepting the risk.

 

[scubadale]

Just saw this.

KRLD - Dallas May Have People Pay Before Using An Ambulance

 

[muddiver]

The OP's question is from a Kiwi's perspective so I won't comment on if it sould be law in New Zealand.

In the U.S., rescue and rescue agencies (on the west coast) are socialized. I pay my taxes and a certain amount is used to fund the equipment and the saleries of teh full-time paid fire/police/coast guard personnel. It's their duty and job as a paid professional, that often sit around with nothing to do, to go out a rescue stupid people. Don't try to argue the "nothing to do" part because I was a firefighter and I can back up my statement.

The other side of the coin is that we enjoy low tax level that don't keep up with the cost of technology and saleries. So it is becoming common practice to drop all or a portion of the bill on the individual that caused the issue. Case in point is every time there is a major wildland fire here in California that is caused by a determinable person and event, the cost of the fire suppression is usually levied as the penalty for that persons negligence or criminal action.

The SCUBA industry has "Oh cr*p!" insurance available, at least I pay for it, so ones actions wheather stupid, ignorant or victim of secumstance can be covered to help reimburse the agency or rescue team for their expenses. Having some form of insurance is reasonable for anyone that participates in a dangerous sport, but to legislate it will only induce high cost of insurance on the diving public. Let the high cost of one's actions through the invoice for services force the issue of being insured.

Oh, and I was also a volunteer firefighter as well so I know that the duty to respond and the personal satifaction of performing a successful rescue covers the effort expended by the rescuers. It's the material costs that volunteer groups have to recoup to continue to operate for the god of the public.

 

[Garrobo]

Why just scuba divers? Why not swimmer, snorkelers and boaters in general? Why pick on divers and let the rest off.

 

[sporket]

I say no, the natural order of things will take care of this idiot in due time. I think in "most cases" its not gross negligence of the diver. Just compiling poor circumstances compiling up on the diver(s).

 

[DiveDiva_Rach]

I say no, the natural order of things will take care of this idiot in due time. I think in "most cases" its not gross negligence of the diver. Just compiling poor circumstances compiling up on the diver(s).

Although it may be true that the natural order will catch up with this guy and others, I have to disagree with you because I think 99.9% of incidents involving qualified divers are as a result of diver error. This includes but is not limited to hen the diver :

- Dives outside the realms of his/her training and experience
- Chooses to deviate from their training
- Fails to regularly service their equipment
- Excercises poor judgement

etc, etc

"comiling poor circumstances" could, for example be, the weather (big waves), no buddy and no SMB. It is my view that choosing to dive at all in such conditions without adequate experience could show lack of sound judgement, diving without a buddy goes against the diver's training recommendations and not carrying an SMB also showed poor judgement (and stupidity IMHO).

Just my 0.2c

I do wonder that if he knew if he had to cough up the cost of any subsequent rescue, would he indeed do anything different next time?

 

[leapfrog]

I think the answers to the questions on this thread are being discussed on another one right now

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac...56-two-divers-missing-whitsunday-islands.html

 

[Saltwater Junky]

People need to start accepting responsibility for their own actions and keep the legal system out of things. Lawyers have screwed things up enough in the US as it is .

I remember seeing on Dateline or 60minutes serveral years ago a show dedicated to Liabilty/Warning Labels. One segment was about lawn darts - the company was sued and had to pay because it did not have a warning to the effect of only to be used under the supervision of an adult. The parents that sued had lost their daughter to an accident. Their son went next door to play with the neighbor's children. They got the neighbor's lawn dart set. They eventually began throwing the darts high into the air across the privacy fence after doing this a couple of times back and forth across the fence one impailed the plaintiff's daughter. They didn't sue their neighbors for all their worth eventhough they let the children play with lawn darts unsupervised. They sued the manufacturer. Would they have sued a knife manufacturer if the children had been throwing knives?

Another gentleman sued a bike manufacturer for not having a warning label on the bike tothe effect of do not ride at night without lights. He rode his bike at night w/o lights illegally into an intersection and was hit. Yes, he sued and won. He broke several laws and still won. The legal profession has gone screwy.

He was saved once and warned. If he needs saved again case because he did not heed the warnings, he needs to be billed for the rescue. The taxpayers do not need to foot the bill more then once because he is ignorant.

Absolutely!!!!!!