Merged: Liability Releases - shop sued diver's death, Catalina Island 2005

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

ItsBruce

Contributor
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
171
Location
Marina Del Rey, California
It seems apropos to put this under "Near Misses and Lessons Learned."

The California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District just released its decision in a case involving a diver's death in Catalina. The decision is important because it is likely to directly impact liability releases used by shops and dive operators everywhere. Here is the story:

Raffi Huverserian and his son, Ari Huverserian, rented scuba diving equipment from Catalina Scuba Luv. Raffi Huverserian executed an equipment rental agreement which included language purporting to release Catalina Scuba Luv from any claims or liabilities. It stated in bold, underlined print: “Equipment rental agreement, liability release and assumption of risk of scuba & snorkel gear for boat dives or multiple day rentals” Following this is text in unemphasized type, it said: “This agreement is entered into between Catalina Scuba Luv and rentor and is a release of the rentor[’]s rights to sue for injuries or deaths resulting from the rental and/or use of this equipment. Rentor expressly assumes all risks of skin and/or scuba diving related in any way to the rental and/or use of this equipment. Rentor hereby acknowledges receipt of the equipment is in good working condition and that he/she has examined the equipment to ensure that it is free from defects, including checking both the quality and quantity of air in any scuba tank(s) rented. Rentor also understands that Catalina Scuba Luv and its employees, owners, officers, or agents shall not be held liable or responsible in any way for any injury, death or other damages to rentor or his/her family, heirs, or assigns which may occur as a result of the rental and/or use of the equipment, or as a result of product defect, or the negligence of any party, including the released parties, whether passive or active. I have carefully read and understand the above agreement. By signing this agreement, I exempt and release Catalina Scuba Luv and all related entities as defined above, from all liability or responsibility whatsoever for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death as a result of renting and/or using the equipment, however caused resulting but not limited to product liability or the negligence of the released parties. Rentor agrees that he/she will be charged for damaged or missing gear.”

The Huverserians did not rent the equipment for boat dives or multiple days.

The Huverserians took the dive equipment to Casino Point Dive Park in Avalon and entered the water. Raffi Huverserian ran out of air at a depth of 60 feet. He made a controlled ascent by breathing with his son, but went into cardiac arrest on the beach. Although he was resuscitated in Avalon, he died the next day at UCLA Medical Center.

Raffi Huverserian’s wife, son, and daughter sued Catalina Scuba Luv for wrongful death.

Catalina Scuba Luv asserted that because of the release language in the rental agreement, it had a complete defense and that as a result, it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law without even the need for a trial. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in favor of Catalina Scuba Luv.

It found that by virtue of the boldface, underlined language the exculpatory language that followed was limited to persons who rented equipment for a boat dive or multiple day rentals. Since the Huverserians did not fall into either category, the language did not apply to them. As a result, the language did not serve as a defense and Catalina Scuba Luv was not entitled to have the case dismissed.

It is important to note that the court did not say Catalina Scuba Luv was liable or that an appropriate release would not have been effective.

Any shop or operator who uses release language should check what it actually says and see if it might be read to limit itself. (I am hesitant to suggest that anyone have an attorney look over their release because I don't want anyone suggesting that I'm trying to make business for lawyers...but as for myself, I would never consider letting an attorney service my regulator.)
 
Just read the appellate opinion. It looks like sloppy drafting by whomever wrote the Release. There's nothing earthshaking in the opinion. The simple reading of the Release language is that it didn't apply to one-day rentals for shore diving.
 
Remember that exemption clauses are construed contra preferendum (ie. against the party they are intended to protect). If there is any ambiguity, it will be resolved in favour of the claimant party.
 
True. Here, the Court found no ambiguity and the terms of the Release simply didn't apply to one-day shore dives.

Anyone know why that language was used?
 
I wonder if their lawyer will have a better release than the one he prepared for his client.
 
Personally, I find the concept of a release that tries to protect a shop from a suit based upon the shop's negligence to be offensive. In practice, the number of renters who are in position to thoroughly examine and verify all aspects of rental gear is probably pretty small, and the shop ought to be responsible for verifying the quality and quantity of gas in a tank they rent. If that weren't the case, then why would anyone have ever been upset with Gundi? After all, the issues there were a result of gas quality, and it would have been the responsibility of the divers to test that before using the tanks, right?

No piece of paper should release someone from responsibility for the results of their own negligence.
 
wow this is one reason I use my own gear and have it maintained yearly. Some think annual maitenance is overkill but this is why I feel its worth every penny.
 
Poorly written liability for sure, but that is ridiculous to hold the shop to blame! Don't their actions need to have caused direct harm for them to be sued? I am not sure how it works in the US...
 
If, in fact, they can demonstrate significant "zero error" on the SPG then I think they may have a case. The SPG needs to have been, "suitable for the purpose intended."
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom