Question re Death This Week in SoCal ...

[Hoomi]

Personally, I don't think the dive boat operator should be held liable. I don't think any of the training agencies here in the U.S. encourage solo diving, and with only 14 dives under his belt, I doubt it was long enough after his training for him to have forgotten the idea of diving with a buddy. For whatever reason, he chose to dive without a buddy, and whether that had any effect on his death, it was still his choice to make.

I'm not sure what I would do if I were a dive boat operator, and someone along for the excursion wanted to dive solo. My guess is, most such businesses here in the U.S. already require signed waivers regarding liability issues, which likely include clauses concerning incidents arising from practices deemed unsafe by various dive agencies. While that's not absolute protection from litigation, it would at least demonstrate that the injured or deceased diver acknowledged the risks before the dive, and chose to do so anyway.

This is another case where it would be interesting if we had statistics on solo divers. While it can be easy to point to cases where a solo diver had a critical or fatal problem during the dive, it would have to be measured against the likelihood of the problem being lessened by having a dive buddy, and against the total number of solo dives in any given time period.

 

[divechk]

A dive buddy is no guarantee of being safe.

This is totally true especially diving with divers you don't know, or have never dove with- as they might be a safety hazard.

 

[Thalassamania]

My definition of solo- If your buddy is too far away to provide immediate assistance with an emergency you are effectively solo.

In my experience, buddies being too far away to provide immediate assistance is pretty much the norm. Countless times I see one person leading and the other following or buddies otherwise physically close but simply out of the field of vision of each other. The flip side is that in good viz divers regularly assume that because they can see each other they are in contact even when the distance between them is way beyond a few kicks.

This is totally true especially diving with divers you don't know, or have never dove with- as they might be a safety hazard.

My definition of my buddy is another diver who stays close enough to intervene on by behalf in an emergency.

As to liability, like it or not buddy diving is currently the standard of practice of the recreational diving community. If the boat, in any way, contributed to the individual's diving solo then, under the laws of California, where liability is held in proportion to fault there exists a potential liability, since in all actions for negligence resulting in injury to person or property, the contributory negligence of the person injured does not bar recovery, but the damages awarded must be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering.

 

[ligersandtions]

I think it would be impossible for a boat to enforce a buddy system. What's to stop a person from descending with a buddy or a group of people, and then split off on his own after he's "out of sight, out of mind"? There's no possible way to enforce a rule that says you must dive with a buddy....it's plenty easy to fake. On top of that, many people who dive near another person don't actually dive with a buddy....same ocean kind of buddy. And that's their choice (not my preference, but it's their choice), but they do need to be prepared to deal with whatever is thrown their way.

Unfortunately, in regards to this accident, it appears that it was an inexperienced diver. Again, we can only speculate that he was diving solo, but what if it was a case where he accidentally lost the group (he was a new diver....it's very easy for new divers to get separated from a buddy or a group of people)? There are far too many unknowns in this case to really answer any questions.

My condolences to his friends and family, those who were on the boat at the same time as him, and those who operate or work on the boat (FWIW, it is a fantastic, well-run boat, and I would not be hesitant in the least bit to dive with them again).

 

[Hoomi]

Do you folks still have Larry H. Parker out there in California? Out here in Tucson, it's Goldberg and Osborne, but it's the same thing; commercials pushing the idea that, if you are injured in any way, you're entitled to a big settlement.

I still remember those commercials on the Southern California stations: "My lawyer is Larry H. Pahker, and he got me one million dollahs."

It still amazes me that we have a tort system where you can get rich from being injured due to your own stupidity (but not as rich as your lawyer gets).

 

[Teamcasa]

My definition of my buddy is another diver who stays close enough to intervene on by behalf in an emergency.

Exactly.

As to liability, like it or not buddy diving is currently the standard of practice of the recreational diving community. If the boat, in any way, contributed to the individual's diving solo then, under the laws of California, where liability is held in proportion to fault there exists a potential liability, since in all actions for negligence resulting in injury to person or property, the contributory negligence of the person injured does not bar recovery, but the damages awarded must be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering.

Provided the release the diver signed prior to diving is discharged and actual negligence is proved.

Law school class on liability - "He who is best documented, wins." If your documentation is lacking, just hire a better lawyer or two.

 

[InTheDrink]

I am not an expert nor even a novice in any of this but common sense would seem to suggest that allowing a very new diver to dive solo could easily be construed as negligent. I've never been anywhere where that would be considered normal or safe practise. Perhaps he wasn't diving solo, but if he was, and it was sanctioned by the boat operator, it would seem difficult to me to make the case that this is standard operational procedures within recognised professional norms.

That said, I don't think they should be held liable in any way. If someone wants to take a risk, then on their head be it. Whether the law sees it the same way is something different.

Teamcasa, again, I'm not expert at all in this field, but my understanding is that you cannot contract out negligence. Documentation be damned when it comes to negligent actions - waivers don't count for anything.

 

[InTheDrink]

Plus, a waiver of the deceased cannot waive the rights of an heir.

 

[Abidon]

Do you folks still have Larry H. Parker out there in California? Out here in Tucson, it's Goldberg and Osborne, but it's the same thing; commercials pushing the idea that, if you are injured in any way, you're entitled to a big settlement.

I still remember those commercials on the Southern California stations: "My lawyer is Larry H. Pahker, and he got me one million dollahs."

It still amazes me that we have a tort system where you can get rich from being injured due to your own stupidity (but not as rich as your lawyer gets).

Actually, Larry Pahker got him 2.1 million dollahs. I don't think Larry actually got him as much as he needed, because it took about ten years to film commercial where the guy could barely even walk.enguin:

Something tells me that the $2.1 million is already gone.ityparty:

 

[piffle]

I definitely dont think a certifiing agency could be held responsible any more than the Department of Motor Vehicle is responsible for issuing a drivers license to someone who goes out and uses poor judgement in a car costing them their life. As for the dive boat operator, I would hope there is no liabilty but you never know.