Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[stiebs]

It should come out. There are a number of possibilities. 1st, he may actually be a real rescue diver, in which case, it appears he did murder his wife. 2nd, he may have been passed even though he didn't qualify according to standards. In this case, the instructor needs to be sued. The 3rd possibility is he did qualify according to standards and is still incompetent. If that's the case, the agency needs to be sued.

There have been a lot of stupid and thoughtless comments on this threads. That takes the cake. It's people with attitudes like you that are the reason for so many sports, clubs and hobbies being unsustainable because of liability insurance. Why does someone need to be sued?

I passed my driving test fair an square. If I kill another road user for my own stupidity or ignorance, does my driving instructor or assessor come into question? Does the road safety organisations testing process come into question?

Why should a scuba instructor be liable for someone else's substandard behaviour?
What will that achieve? It will scare aware people who are legimately passionate about the sport, and love to share their underwater experiences with others. Who in their right mind would teach scuba, if there is a real chance that they'll be dragged over the coals because one of their past students was a moron?

I know this is off-topic, but I couldn't leave it alone. It ****s me when the answer to all questions is to sue someone.

 

[Walter]

There have been a lot of stupid and thoughtless comments on this threads. That takes the cake. It's people with attitudes like you that are the reason for so many sports, clubs and hobbies being unsustainable because of liability insurance.

If I'd actually said what you seem to think I said, I would agree with you.

I passed my driving test fair an square. If I kill another road user for my own stupidity or ignorance, does my driving instructor or assessor come into question? Does the road safety organisations testing process come into question?

No. In such a case you should be held responsible for your own actions. OTOH, if your instructor passed you and told you were were a competent driver when you weren't, he should be held accountable for his actions. If he passed you because you met the standards of the road safety organization, but those standards were so flawed that you were a danger even when you followed those standards, then you were misled into believing you were a compentent driver when you weren't and that road safety organization should be held accountable for it's actions.

Why should a scuba instructor be liable for someone else's substandard behaviour?

Depends on the situation. Did the instructor teach to standards? Did the student meet those standards? If the question to either is "no," then the instructor should be held accountable. If the answer to both is "yes," then future poor judgement or stupid moves on the part of the former student, is not the fault or reponsibility of the instructor. If those standards were so low that the student was incompetent even while meeting those standards, then the fault lies with the agency.

I do not know if this guy is guilty or innocent. I do know if he were as competent as any entry level diver should be and he wanted to save her, his wife would not have died. He was either totally incompetent as a diver or he killed his wife either through action or inaction. If he was reasonably competent, he deserves to be found guilty. If he is incompetent as a diver, the reason for his incompetence needs to be found. Was it poor instruction? Was it low standards? This very young woman died a meaningless and unnecessary death. I'm not very happy with that. If it happens to be because of poor training, I'd like to see it put to an end.

 

[Crimson Ghost]

To the best of MY knowledge there is no law governing scuba - Certifications are "above and beyond" and generally accepted.....no way someone can be sued for something not required by law -- so this topid here is foolish.

I strongly feel that Gabe killed his wife, I can beleive what he said that she was sinking and he couldn't catch her (making the leap of faith that he failed to empty his BC and that she emptied her's and she was grossly over-weighted). I can also then beleive he made the worlds worst decision to go for help rather than assessing and resolving the issue (aka, recue training) - but the 2 minute ascent blows my mind and screams aloud that he wanted to assure she was good and dead before he allerted anyone. I strongly beleive there is a place in hell already reserved for him.

Do you recall the dive master that pulled Gabe from the water - do you recall what he said of the very first conversation Gabe had after surfacing and what the dive master said to Gabe ?? I'd love someone to post that again.

Wouldn't you then dive back in the water and attempt to get to your bride after you "got help". What normal person wouldn't ??

 

[livinoz]

To the best of MY knowledge there is no law governing scuba - Certifications are "above and beyond" and generally accepted.....no way someone can be sued for something not required by law -- so this topid here is foolish.

You unfortunately can't legislate or pass laws to prevent stupidity. Yes, there should be accepted standards for diving, and yes, there should be an expectation that a person completing a recognised course will be a reasonably competent "novice" diver. Maybe we should then expect a certain number of dives within a time frame to make sure they practice what they've learnt, and maybe that should involve a "check dive" by someone able to judge how they were doing, as is done here with "novice" pilots. I don't know; I'm only thinking around the problem.

The world is not perfect place, and we all know there are divers who are "passed" without meeting a "reasonable standard." And I know that is wrong and is putting that person, and maybe others, at risk. So how can we change that? How can we make the diving industry as a whole accountable? How can we bring the level of all instruction up to a reasonable standard? Should we expect that those who don't meet that accepted standard no longer instruct? Should we fail divers who don't come up to expectation? Do we stop divers from diving if they don't pass their "check" dive? And how would we do that in any case? I don't think there are any easy answers, but I agree that litigation won't solve anything.

 

[Sas]

No. In such a case you should be held responsible for your own actions. OTOH, if your instructor passed you and told you were were a competent driver when you weren't, he should be held accountable for his actions. If he passed you because you met the standards of the road safety organization, but those standards were so flawed that you were a danger even when you followed those standards, then you were misled into believing you were a compentent driver when you weren't and that road safety organization should be held accountable for it's actions.


Depends on the situation. Did the instructor teach to standards? Did the student meet those standards? If the question to either is "no," then the instructor should be held accountable. If the answer to both is "yes," then future poor judgement or stupid moves on the part of the former student, is not the fault or reponsibility of the instructor. If those standards were so low that the student was incompetent even while meeting those standards, then the fault lies with the agency.

I think most people know whether they have met the requirements of a course or not be it scuba or driving. If I was passed on a course I hadn't felt I met the requirements on I would talk to the instructor about it. Most OW courses have the requirements laid out for you to review. Adults should have some responsibility in making sure that they are not passed on something they are not qualified to be passed on. So I don't think instructors are solely to blame as most people should know how they are at driving or diving, etc so the burden of responsibility should lie on both the student and instructor.

Also I don't see why the first thing people think of in that situation you have mentioned is to sue for money. It has created a very litigious environment where instead of people going "I wonder what we can get the organisation to do in future to stop things like this happening. Maybe retrain the instructor, or have student reviews... etc" they go "I wonder how much money I can get from that instructor's screw up".

 

[livinoz]

I think most people know whether they have met the requirements of a course or not be it scuba or driving. If I was passed on a course I hadn't felt I met the requirements on I would talk to the instructor about it. Most OW courses have the requirements laid out for you to review. Adults should have some responsibility in making sure that they are not passed on something they are not qualified to be passed on. So I don't think instructors are solely to blame as most people should know how they are at driving or diving, etc so the burden of responsibility should lie on both the student and instructor.

Also I don't see why the first thing people think of in that situation you have mentioned is to sue for money. It has created a very litigious environment where instead of people going "I wonder what we can get the organisation to do in future to stop things like this happening. Maybe retrain the instructor, or have student reviews... etc" they go "I wonder how much money I can get from that instructor's screw up".

Unfortunately, as we see up North, the pressure of time and money spent, means that not every "adult" makes responsible decisions. The "tourist divers" as we call them, are sometimes borderline, having no control over their buoyancy, crashing into the coral, and taking every opportunity of photographing the marine life so they can have the holiday snap to take home, to the detriment of all. Does the blame lie with the instructor, the certification agency, or the individual, or all three? But as you said so rightly, personal responsibility seems to go out the window in a litigious society....it's always someone else's fault.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

To the best of MY knowledge there is no law governing scuba - Certifications are "above and beyond" and generally accepted.....no way someone can be sued for something not required by law -- so this topid here is foolish.

I strongly feel that Gabe killed his wife, I can beleive what he said that she was sinking and he couldn't catch her (making the leap of faith that he failed to empty his BC and that she emptied her's and she was grossly over-weighted). I can also then beleive he made the worlds worst decision to go for help rather than assessing and resolving the issue (aka, recue training) - but the 2 minute ascent blows my mind and screams aloud that he wanted to assure she was good and dead before he allerted anyone. I strongly beleive there is a place in hell already reserved for him.

Do you recall the dive master that pulled Gabe from the water - do you recall what he said of the very first conversation Gabe had after surfacing and what the dive master said to Gabe ?? I'd love someone to post that again.

Wouldn't you then dive back in the water and attempt to get to your bride after you "got help". What normal person wouldn't ??

In terms of lawsuits: you are confusing criminal and civil law. People are sued all the time for doing legal things. A lawsuit requires three things: 1) damages 2) negligence and 3) proof that the negligence directly caused the damages.

Negligence means that someone deviated from the accepted standards of behavior of their profession; it does not require the breaking of laws. A doctor or scuba instructor can be negligent without breaking any laws. My negligence could kill someone and I might lose a bundle, but I would not likely go to jail for murder unless I had a criminal intent. Incidentally, many organizations (doctors included) are wary of establishing 'strict guidelines' of behavior in any given situation. Although it seems smart to put everything in detailed writing, such guidelines only make it easier for lawyers to identify negligence.

For example, your rescue manual might read "assistance should be rendered in a timely manner" but some gung-ho person might insist it to read "the panicked diver should be brought to the surface in x number of minutes". In the first case, we have some wiggle room that makes deviation (negligence) somewhat vague. In the second case, although it sounds more authoritative, now gives an iron-clad definition of negligence (surfacing the panicked diver in anything greater than x minutes). Those who write such guidelines, take note: a little vagueness goes a long way to preventing liability.

A diver who is certified negligently by a bad instructor and goes out and hurts himself might be able to make a civil case, but in the topic at hand, it would seem far-fetched to prove that an instructor's negligence directly caused a diver to be unable to save a third party. Theoretically, that negligence might exist, but in a real court, it would be hopeless. What evidence could you produce? A videotape of an instructor telling students that the best way to handle a panicked diver is to let them sink to the bottom while you make a leisurely ascent to get help? I don't think so.

 

[Dadvocate]

Bubba

I think you may be misunderstanding when exactly she had her computer in her hand. They were on the dive boat, before any dives, turning on their tanks & checking their air supply. She may not have put her computer on her wrist yet.

You are right. I might not have the correct picture. I freely admit that.

Walter

It should come out. There are a number of possibilities. 1st, he may actually be a real rescue diver, in which case, it appears he did murder his wife. 2nd, he may have been passed even though he didn't qualify according to standards. In this case, the instructor needs to be sued. The 3rd possibility is he did qualify according to standards and is still incompetent. If that's the case, the agency needs to be sued.

It seems you are making a false dichotomy (trichotomy??), though you also say there are “a number of possibilities”. Obviously these are not the only three options available in this case…

And I agree with others that the instructor can’t possibly be held responsible for the actions of someone else, nor should the agency that certified him. If this were actually feasible, why not make the instructor or the certification agency an accessory to murder if the first option you listed turns out to be true? Ridiculous no matter how one slices it.

Nope. OTOH, poor classes need to end and if that was, in fact, the case in this situation, the folks responsible need to be held accountable. It could be the individual instructor, it could be the agency or it could be the diver. I don't have the facts and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if criminal charges can actually be brought against the instructor (if he is at fault) or the agency (if they are at fault), but criminal charges would be a better solution (assuming they are possible) than a law suit, IMO. If this guy is a competent diver and a competent rescue diver (should be easy enough to determine from talking with folks who've dived with him), then he is at fault in his wife's death. He either killed her or let her die when any competent entry level diver could have saved her.

I understand your beliefs regarding responsibility run deep, but I think you might be remiss in omitting the distinct possibility that this woman died and no one is at fault. To be fair, this needs to be included in any list that attempts to look at this case given what little we know at this juncture.

Then he's an incompetent diver who put his wife in a life threatening situation. Assuming he's telling the complete truth as he remembers it, there was no danger to his wife until he let go of her to recover his regulator and clear his mask.

I am not sure that we can ever come up with an objective standard that pins “freaking out” to incompetency. Yes, in some cases doing so should be seen in this light, but in others it might well be reflective of a particular circumstance. Of course you and I can agree to disagree on where that line falls, as can any number of other people. Whatever we agree or disagree on, the fact remains that “freaking out” is a far cry from premeditated murder, no matter how disdainful the agent doing the “freaking out” might be.

The BS flag has to come out on this one. The situation the two divers were in was OW-101 problem solving. She was sinking so he shows her to put air in her BC. That doesn't work so instead of grabbing hold of her & getting air in her BC, either through the inflator or orally, he attempts to drag her, against the current that was so strong they were aborting the dive, back to the line. The BC which, BTW, was working fine. If he's on the up & up & didn't kill her, putting air in her BC & taking a leisurely ascent to the surface negates everything that happened after. So, although I'm not a big believer in lawsuits, if the rescue instructor passed this guy with ZERO skills, he should lose his teaching credentials.

But the instructor didn’t drag her against the current, the defendant did. Some time back I read an OP that showed how an extremely experienced diver forgot to turn on her air before doing a shore entry into a strong current on a dive. This woman had exponentially more experience than I have; yet I see this error as being something that I would “never” do. She died as a result of this error and in fact endangered several other divers who risked precarious conditions to drag her out of the water. Had she survived, should she have been stripped of her teaching license as well? Or is it better to acknowledge that we are in fact human and err quite frequently when the chips aren’t as high as they were in this case? Again, the gamut of opinions might be as varied as stars in the universe, which only goes to show why it is very difficult to set a SHOULD BE criterion for these diving tragedies. Of course he is much more culpable if in fact he murdered her.

Palatkaboy

My AI computer (Uwatec SmartCOM) is a console (there is a wrist mount version, though) that displays an alarm when breathing hard. This alarm and its duration is also shown in my PC dive log (Diving Log 4.0).

Okay, thanks for the clarification. It seems she was checking it on the surface anyway, as Bubba explained to me.

Depends on the situation. Did the instructor teach to standards? Did the student meet those standards? If the question to either is "no," then the instructor should be held accountable. If the answer to both is "yes," then future poor judgment or stupid moves on the part of the former student, is not the fault or responsibility of the instructor. If those standards were so low that the student was incompetent even while meeting those standards, then the fault lies with the agency.

Just out of idle curiosity, Walter, how would you suggest we go about determining these if these standards were or weren’t met in this particular case?

Cheers!

 

[JB]

I am horrified at this obsession with litigation. I believe implicitly that in any high risk activity the buck stops with the individual. We seem to still harbour the primitive need for revenge, and if it can't be physical (an-eye-for-an-eye) then we resort to punitive financial penalties. This just drives the cost of goods and services up as insurance companies and lawyers skim off the top of all enterprises (a nice place to be?!!). Why is it so abhorrent for us to accept that the affected individual made a mistake that we need to find someone else to blame?

In this case the dive operator has already been fined??? What did they do wrong? If the allegations prove valid, then they took a homicidal individual and his wife for a dive. How on earth could any procedure prevent or change the outcome? I'm sure their guilty plea was much like torture, and there was far less pain (cost) in pleading guilty than in defending the charges. I would like to see that ruling overturned, but it may be too late, they have scaled down their operation since this event. The presumption of innocence seem to exclusively apply to the victim or an individual, companies seem to be guitly until proven innocent. The net result is that we, the diving public, pick up the tab in more restrictive services and higher prices.

As in most incidents there are no winners, seems that everyone looses. Everytime someone is sued the cost of services provided necessarily has to increase. Does it make the activity safer? I doubt it very much. Does the death penalty reduce the incidence of murder? or drug trafficing? So at best litigation subserves the basic instincts of revenge, and greed. We are all fallible, like the instructor who forgot to turn on the tank valve, mistakes happen, the question is should someone else have to pay for our mistakes. If you spill hot coffee on the lounge rug should a fast food retailer have to pay for the carpet cleaners? OK, so if you spill it on your lap, should they have to pay damages?

The object of analysing an incident is to prevent it happening again, a few million bucks does not do that at all, circulating the conclusions has some chance of people learning from the event. Perhaps in these threads as well as condolences to the family we could add a similar comment for the DM and dive operator, who will go out of business, and finally congratulations to the lawyer who will retire on his cut of the procedes or at least get that latest model Ferrari.

The next stage:- legal business cards being handed out to divers as they board the boat, a rewrite of the the first aid algorithm to include P>L>D>R>A>B>C (Publicist, Lawyer, Danger, Response, Airway, Breathing, Circulation).

Oh for a perfect world!! A few remarkable individuals do get it right, but unfortunately they are few and far between. Happy Birthday Madiba.

Disappointed.

 

[Dadvocate]

I am horrified at this obsession with litigation. I believe implicitly that in any high risk activity the buck stops with the individual. We seem to still harbour the primitive need for revenge, and if it can't be physical (an-eye-for-an-eye) then we resort to punitive financial penalties.

I couldn’t agree more! If only the maxim “the buck stops here” could take on real axiomatic meaning in our lives, our sport (and others) would benefit and people might get real closure out of tragic deaths.

If litigation is necessary, please let it be for actual malice that doesn’t have to be sieved several times in order to cherry pick a crumb of wrong doing.

If this guy is guilty, “the buck stop here” works just as well, leaving the dive community (including instructors and dive ops) to applaud along with the rest of us who try to hold this concept to bear.

Cheers!