Waivers on private boats?

[adurso]

Lawyers? If it wasn’t for them we wouldn’t need any.

OK, there are good and bad ones just like any other profession. But just keep in mind that you can be sued over almost anything at anytime. If you don’t believe that come and work with us for a while.

I have been sued for saving a persons life by him and his wife for $1.1M. I have also been sued by the driver of a car who we stopped at a clearly marked roadblock with 3 of us in uniform and marked units with the overheads on. She stopped and was informed of the road closure ahead due to construction crews blasting the road side. She looked right at me, said the magic Frank Union, backed up, turned to the left, floored it and ran into me as hard as she could. I wsent over the hood, roof, over the trunk and onto the ground. So you’re thinking there is no way she could win a case like that. Not only did we have to pay for the damage to her Camaro my body caused but we gave her $125K to boot. Seems that I violated her Civil Rights.

That’s just a couple of the dozens of times for stupid things. Won some and lost some but there is no end as to what you can be sued for. And remember if it goes to a jury trial your fate is not in what is right or wrong but what the 12 in the jury feels is right, wrong or just. Don't count on a waiver to protect you in any way shape or form.

Back to boating. To make it simple the USCG has explained it this way to us. If you have a boat and take people out and “they offer” to help with expenses OK. If you take people out and “you ask” for help with the expenses in any way you could be in violation.

Gary D.

In my neck of the woods we would light the vehicle up like a christmas tree....

 

[ItsBruce]

Everyone should note that the crackpot, runaway juries are NEVER composed of lawyers and almost never have a single lawyer on them. It takes non-lawyers to come up with the kind of lunacy about which GaryD writes. Lawyers may present the case and make the arguments, but it is the LAYPEOPLE who make the ultimate decisions. Lawyers rarely decide to sue over injuries ... it is the people who claim to be injured or their families (usually non-lawyers) who want to sue. They are the ones who go to the lawyers; lawyers rarely seek them out. Yes, it is the lawyers who accommodate them, but if lawyers didn't, they'd do it themselves.

 

[ItsBruce]

Another thought: I'm not giving anyone legal advice or any other kind of advice, but consider this: If you want to know how to minimize your risk of liability when taking someone out on your boat, etc, are you better off asking a lawyer versed in the laws of your particular jurisdiction or asking someone who may have a lot of street smarts, but no legal training? Do you really want to put your well-being in the hands of a layperson?

 

[captain]

True it is laypeople who make the decision but lawyers on both sides present the case in a manner that best suits their side winning and neither side may be the actual story it's just which side the jury believes.

 

[ReefHound]

True it is laypeople who make the decision but lawyers on both sides present the case in a manner that best suits their side winning and neither side may be the actual story it's just which side the jury believes.

The real problem is all the info the jury is NOT allowed to hear. I say let both sides present ANY and ALL evidence and let the jury decide what is relevant.

 

[itsjustme0770]

I always laugh at this discussion. When I talk to juries during jury selection, I always ask them who heard of the McDonalds case? Everyone raises their hand. Sometimes (depending on which side I am on) I will ask them if they know how it turned out in the end. Almost none of them know that the award was dramatically reduced by the appellate court. Looks alot like alot of the uninformed opinions here.

Republican judges, eradication of the mass tort docket, ect have just had a devastating effect. The current caps have a chilling effect on bringing claims that have merit. The caps are out of touch with reality -- the majority of people in hospitals are old people and infants and have no economic damages. Does that mean that they are worth less? In Texas, if you walk through (that it, I mean literally go through the doors instead of in the front door) the emergency room doors, no matter where in the hospital you end up, in order to recover anything for medical malpractice you have to prove that the doctor acted INTENTIONALLY. If he was just drunk, its not enough. Who does this affect more? Lower socio-economic classes, because that's where they go for their health care, I gues they are just worth less. Oh, and if you prove an intentional act, you are capped at $250,000 in non-economic damages. So if your brand new baby boy gets killed by a drunk doctor, the most you can recover is $250,000 plus medical expenses. Why, because the kid's future earnings are too speculative. Oh, and I can't work that case up for less than $250,000 because the hospital is going to run the costs up and I'll have to hire experts that will eat through that maximum recovery in no time (and no defendant will ever offer the max to settle). Are there BS cases. Sure. The court system is great at getting rid of them, but you don't hear about that.

And lets not forget the insurance companies who complained they couldn't bear the continued costs of the tort system. You know, the ones who assured the doctors that they would see dramatic decrease in their rates if they passed tort reform? Insurance premiums are up 45% across the board since "reform" was passed.

Continue to give away your constitutional rights as you like, but please don't come whining if its your child/grandchild/daughter/son/wife who gets a life altering injury or dies because someone else screwed up. I can't tell you how many republicans come into my office every year with a case that they voted away all of their rights on 4 years ago.

BTW, if you really want to affect the "litigation crisis" tell your representatives to put a stop to companies suing companies. Microsoft just got popped for 3.5 Billion late last year for patent infringement, a contact company just got popped in Texas for $41 million a month ago, microsoft is in trial right now for damages of over 1.5 Billion. Meanwhile, Exxon still has not paid the judgment against it from the Exxon Valdez debacle some 15 years ago and just finished arguing the case to the US Supreme court where they argued among otherthings that the 1.5 billion verdict (originally the verdict was 5 billion, but the appeals court reduced it to 1.5 BB) was too much, this from a company that made more tens of billions in profit this year alone all the while many of the people who lost everything and the pristine wilderness that was forever ruined wonder if they will ever have justice.

Separately, friends dive off my boat all the time, no waiver but lots of homeowners and umbrella policy insurance.

 

[ItsBruce]

The real problem is all the info the jury is NOT allowed to hear. I say let both sides present ANY and ALL evidence and let the jury decide what is relevant.

I respectfully disagree. Many of the things the jury is not allowed to hear is not really "evidence." Given that no one really likes being on a jury, certain restrictions are necessary to make it possible to finish a case up in a reasonable time frame. Just imagine how long a wealthy defendant who knows it is liable could keep the case going. Beyond this, there are some logical reasons for keeping certain evidence away from the jury. Most notably, if the jury could be told that a defendant fixed something or changed a procedure after an injury so that it would not reoccur, no one would take corrective actions for fear of that being used as "proof" they did something wrong in the first place. And, who in their right mind would offer to settle a case if an opponent could say "See that proves he is liable" or "See that proves the claim isn't valid"?

Now, back to the OP: Which dive operators or boat captains among the members of SB require or don't require a waiver?

 

[NorCaldvr]

WoW! I never thought of this at all. I have a nice boat that my friends can dive off of when ever they want. I guess I am just nieve, or stupid but I didnt think that I would ever be held liable for opening up my home or boat or anything like that to my friends.

 

[ReefHound]

Odds are you could be ¨naive¨ like this a hundr5ed lifetimes and never have such a problem but it does happen to someone all the time. Of course, there are nasty auto accidents all the time as well but that doesn´t mean we should be paranoid to drive.

 

[mike_s]

We'll, lets add one more question...

would you require a waiver for someone to borrow a scuba tank?

I scuba shop would require a waiver before renting one, so why now lending one?

I mean if someone is using a "rented tank" and has an accident such as running out of air, or going into the bends, what's to say that they will say (or sue) the shop didn't fill the tank properly, had the wrong mix in it, was labeled incorrectly, etc.

couldn't the same happen to you if you loaned a tank to someone?

just something for discussion.