Whatever happened with "Drifting Dan?"

[drbill]

I should clarify my position on this. Certainly the captain does have ultimate responsibility. However, if the situation is as I understand it to be (and I may be wrong) I find fault with the operation that apparently chartered the vessel since they provided their own dive crew. Some of the drifting diver's claims seem rather specious and I hope they are thrown out in court.

It is my understanding that Capt. Ray has changed the procedure for all boat runs including when the chartering entity provides its own dive crew. I think this is a good and proper move.

As I've said, I barely know Capt. Ray (we met briefly at SCUBA Show) and have never been on his dive boat. I don't believe I know any of the other parties involved. Therefore I have no personal associations here. However, at least one of the posters critical of Capt. Ray does have personal interests involved and therefore may be much less objective. It's a shame that individual doesn't disclose this.

 

[Peter Guy]

A question I have regarding who is responsible relates to which law applies and under which law(s) is the lawsuit being prosecuted. If, for example, this is a state law Tort case under California law, what is the relevance of Federal Maritime law regarding the responsibility of the ship's master? I don't know the answer but to me, it is a valid question.

One must always know what law applies before jumping to conclusions as to what the law is.

 

[scjoe]

Just to clarify- All accounts I've read show the diver's on board count at 20-21. Does someone have other information that states 7?

Update- I just read one of the "news" reports from the current trial and it quotes the Divemaster responsible for the roll call as saying "Last week, divemaster Zacarias Araneta said that somebody answered for Carlock when he took roll, but he didn't know which of the seven divers onboard it was."

I wonder if they are getting the number of divers perhaps confused with the number of miles offshore Dan may have been found. Seven is a very small contingent for a shop charter on the Sundiver. I too recalled the number of divers previously being reported at around 20 before I saw the recent quote from the DM.

 

[Scott L]

A question I have regarding who is responsible relates to which law applies and under which law(s) is the lawsuit being prosecuted. If, for example, this is a state law Tort case under California law, what is the relevance of Federal Maritime law regarding the responsibility of the ship's master? I don't know the answer but to me, it is a valid question.

One must always know what law applies before jumping to conclusions as to what the law is.

Not sure why the obligations of the captain would be different yet I am not an attorney such as yourself. Four years was enough...

 

[drbill]

This case will certainly continue to be of interest. My understanding (and I am by NO means a legal expert) is that the captain of a vessel has the ultimate responsibility. However, that does not mean I think Ray did anything wrong other than possibly take the word of the DM in charge of the count. The error certainly seems to be that of the DM in charge of the count, and since that DM was not one of Ray's crew but hired by the chartering entity, it seems that a major part of the blame should logically fall on them.

However, I've learned that logic does not always work in courts of law (at least not the way it does in science). But then, I have defended myself against several lawyers and won each time.

Would be interested in a clarification here on the number of divers on board. Seven vs twenty-something is a big gap and certainly would have impact on the roll call procedures.

 

[diverrex]

Somebody must know the facts of how many divers were on board. I can't believe it was only 7 because with only 7 divers I know just as a diver I would have noticed one was missing even without a roll call. Now with 20 or so I'd never notice.

 

[Scott L]

This case will certainly continue to be of interest. My understanding (and I am by NO means a legal expert) is that the captain of a vessel has the ultimate responsibility. However, that does not mean I think Ray did anything wrong other than possibly take the word of the DM in charge of the count. The error certainly seems to be that of the DM in charge of the count, and since that DM was not one of Ray's crew but hired by the chartering entity, it seems that a major part of the blame should logically fall on them.

However, I've learned that logic does not always work in courts of law (at least not the way it does in science). But then, I have defended myself against several lawyers and won each time.

Would be interested in a clarification here on the number of divers on board. Seven vs twenty-something is a big gap and certainly would have impact on the roll call procedures.

I believe it is simply a case of the cycle of life. Good practices are so often forgotten over time only to be learned again later after an event such as this. Visual confirmation roll-calls were not common place around here until the last several years. The captain must trust someone to accomplish as they are too task loaded to perform. The mistake seems have been relying on someone (visting DM) who was little known. A concurrent observation by the boat's crew probaly should have been preformed...

 

[merxlin]

I believe it is simply a case of the cycle of life. Good practices are so often forgotten over time only to be learned again later after an event such as this. Visual confirmation roll-calls were not common place around here until the last several years. The captain must trust someone to accomplish as they are too task loaded to perform. The mistake seems have been relying on someone (visting DM) who was little known. A concurrent observation by the boat's crew probaly should have been preformed...

What if this was a known shop, the captain knew the DM/Shop crew and they had performed under this procedure satisfactorily in the past. Would that make a difference in your opinion of the procedure and where the responsibility lies?

 

[Scott L]

What if this was a known shop, the captain knew the DM/Shop crew and they had performed under this procedure satisfactorily in the past. Would that make a difference in your opinion of the procedure and where the responsibility lies?

Primary responsibility, no. Secondary responsibility, yes. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence the captain was to be named in the case one way or another especially in that he likely mainatined lofty insurance limits while the DM none at all or minimal. The deep pockets therory in play. Me and you discussing the case over beers...yeah, the DM was to blame...

 

[scjoe]

The captain/shop relationship may not be controlling when it comes to the passenger/captain relationship. I seem to recall that many years ago the perfume and jewelry counters at large department stores were often independent businesses just renting space. The fact that the arrangement appeared to the customers to be different led to problems for the stores. I believe the phrase "independently owned and operated" that came into being in franchising had its origins in these arrangements.