I'm repeating myself, but I believe if we are to hold people accountable, we must strive to recognize and determine who is responsible for what and to what extent. Totally absolving of any accountability those who may be partially responsible for the occurrence of an act - is an omission of responsibility. We would not want all the blame to fall on any one party if it is undeserved. Whoever the party may be.
It's impossible, or almost so, to draw a simple clear line since every event is unique. Take the taxi example. Yo, taxi driver, take me to The Big Bucks bank down the street and wait for me. I'll be out quick as soon as I rob it..... Take me to the big bridge, I'm going to jump. It's not a simple taxi ride for the driver anymore, is it. Not a lawyer either, but the law will seek to determine if the taxi driver voluntarily contributed to the commission of the act. There are all kinds of different issues involved here, but let's assume the taxi driver simply said: On the way boss, pay the fare, what you do is your business not mine. I think the law will disagree with his interpretation.
Some basic responsibilities taken by various parties during a dive trip include:
Determining who is allowed to participate in a dive, dive trip - accepting.
Determining dive location - accepting it.
Assessing and informing others of site conditions - accepting or making own judgment.
Guiding, supervising, permitting freedom to make own plan for the dive - accepting required conditions.
Providing transport - accepting conditions of transport.
These are tough business decisions, for example: whether charter checks for some form of skill level, let's say asking for C cards, etc, or nothing at all, there is always an issue of liability under certain circumstances) One of those damn if you do, damn if you don't type of things. It stems from decisions which inherently carry a degree or responsibility on the part of those who engage in them. Ultimately, if the parties don't agree the lawyers and the courts sort them out, for better or worse.
When an accident results, the cause may not be all the responsibility or fault of one person. It may be, but it's entirely possible for others besides the diver involved, to have contributed through their improper, erroneous, negligent, actions and decisions to the cause and/or degree of the accident.
Even when a diver signs all the waivers and agrees to everything, and assuming they legally hold up, there remains a standard of care and practice with the professionals involved in running the trip and making decisions. The diver is also accountable for common sense. These standards may not be well defined or even in dispute.
From what I have seen, and looking at the results, the industry - overall, does an acceptable or good job. Undoubtedly, there are those who place income above all else, or perhaps due to a differing view point, fail to provide what many or most other professionals would consider due standard of care. I agree it's in everyone's interest to weed these operators out. Let's face it, the dive industry wants and needs vacation divers, the customer service each charter operator provides affects others in a positive or negative way. Having said that, there is a difference between negligence and what may simply be varying degrees of customer service.
Full disclosure and clear communication of exactly what is provided and expected should be practiced by both parties. Some charters do push on the edges trying to make a buck. Divers who feel uneasy and expect some sort of supervision, or any issues at all, should clearly state what they expect and ask in no uncertain terms if such service will be provided.
To comment specifically on the first post, I did not go back and read the other thread, its possible better communication on the first dive could have prevented these divers from blaming the charter operator, at least for the in water part. If conditions look challenging, this should be clearly and unambiguously stated. When there is the possibility of encountering challenging drift diving conditions those not versed in this specialized type of diving should be informed of how conditions will affect, what is expected of them, and an abort option if necessary. How well was this done, who knows? As mentioned every story has more than one side. Special consideration is due here when one has a diverse group of divers of differing skill levels and experience. The diver should also take the initiative to ask questions and ultimately decide about conditions he has not experienced or is comfortable with. On the second dive, if we accept the account told, the divers where expecting close supervision, which obviously was not provided. If the DM had other divers to contend with, and felt she could not devote adequate attention to these two than she should not have agreed to those conditions.
In the end lets give some credit to these divers who kept their wits about them enough to get them out of a couple bad situations, instead of becoming another statistic. One can always do things better or not do certain things in retrospect, hopefully it will serve as a positive learning experience for the future. One suggestion for the future is to do some research of the available area dives, conditions, and charters available. With the internet, this is become increasingly easy to do, and should be considered part of the responsibility of every vacation diver instead of simply walking up to any charter and going to whatever dive is being done.
There is something to be said for responsibility and accountability on the part of both the individual diver and the dive charter. When it comes time to admit responsibility and accept the consequences when something goes wrong, many want no part of it. I just don't agree it's always the diver who is fully responsible, all the time, and in all cases. If that's the case - I quit. Free to be unaccountable forever! Now, thats a responsibility I can accept. (joking)
