DM Liability

[DORSETBOY]

James, you did make the statement.

Your exact words from your own post in this thread, post number 32, were: "However in many parts of the world if you so much as lift a finger to help, and a person suffers ill effects because of, or in spite of your aid, you are liable."

So, you have told people they are liable, yet you admit to having no factual basis for this. And now, you have denied making the statement, yet these are your words.

Nice troll. Try taking the giving of legal advice a bit more seriously, though.

We were told in our IDC and MFA Instructor training that there are countries where there is such a risk, we were given a couple of examples which as it was a year ago I cant remember in the office so I'm inclined to believe the Course Directrs who taught us on that one.

 

[jagfish]

I spent about half a year in India a ways back.
One of the things I was told was in the event that you witness a car accident (or similar) it is best to not get involved as you would become inextricably enmeshed in the incident (and in the process, taking on liability if you provided care).

Sad

 

[tedwhiteva]

Most DMs and instructors I know take care not to identify themselves as such when diving "on holiday". They just present their AOW card in order to dive.

Right on the money, not just for liability reasons. If diving as a walk-on, a boat operator is liable to pair you with a "soup sandwich" if they know you are a DM or Instructor. Always bring an AOW card with you.

 

[CBulla]

I spent about half a year in India a ways back.
One of the things I was told was in the event that you witness a car accident (or similar) it is best to not get involved as you would become inextricably enmeshed in the incident (and in the process, taking on liability if you provided care).

Sad

Just a note on this - in the US you cannot be held liable for assisting someone whose been in an accident prior to the arrival of professional medical personnel. This is covered by the Good Samaritan law.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Right on the money, not just for liability reasons. If diving as a walk-on, a boat operator is liable to pair you with a "soup sandwich" if they know you are a DM or Instructor. Always bring an AOW card with you.

I disagree. I pair myself with who I choose. If the crew wants me to work they are free to make an offer to buy my labor and vacation time (not cheap).

As a rule I carry a gas blender card incase I need to look for resources to mix gas and for a diving card I carry the ones I use the most which are my most advanced cards. If I plan on teaching I carry whatever instructor and insurance cards that I might need. I wouldn't even know where to look for my OW card.

The crew can do a far better job of allocating their resources if they know who they have on board. I've always though it irresponsible to lead a DM to think you're an OW diver when you're something more.

 

[HammerNoMore]

Hey man, it's your board - so you'll always be right (no problem). My observed experience with James (and others on this board) is to sometimes spew without having his/her facts straight. I originally replied that I'd hoped for specifics - but that the one generalization from the State Dept was fine with me.

That was until James used the "I don't have to tell you my sources" line. He's right (he doesn’t have to back up his statements), but it makes him look like a fabricator of facts (something he will have to live with).

I must apologize. I was going back through the thread to try to explain this once again, and realized that I may have caused some confusion here. You are refering to post number 41, where I said it wasn't my responsibilty to reasearch and find a diving incident. I see that I didn't quote, but I was actually referring to the post directly above (40) from Mike:

James, I'd still like some example of where a diver was found liable for 'lifting a finger to help' where the diver wasn't a professional who violated a clear standard.

I still don't feel the need to justify this statement as I never made it, however I now see you thought I was replying to your post (37).

michaelp68[/url]]What’s more, James was fairly derogatory…
(throwing one a bone is a slander toward the stature of the intended – IE, they are beneath you, or are a dog), as well as a slighted definition of liable.

Honestly I'd never thought of that phrase as derogtory, if it was taken that way I apologize again. However, it is not a phrase I would have used had I not been frustrated by being asked, for the second time, to provide a specific example involving a non-professional diver to support a general statement that was in reply to a post about a drunk falling down in the street. This statement was not directed at you either, though I think it is more clear in this case.

I’m sorry if this comes off in anyway that anyone feels as negative. These are facts as they are recorded here (other than my opinions of content and context). My sincere apologies to all concerned if I am wrong. It would have been much easier if James would have put MichaelP68 in his place by citing his sources. It would have really given him a great deal of credibility.

Had I represented that such a thing had happened, I would need to be able to back that up. I would not make such a statement without proof. I made a statement that was, unfortunatly, mis-interpretable. I should have said "can be found", instead of "are". However, both are are correct depending on which definition of liable you use and based on the the posts here it has been interpreted both ways by other users. What I never said was, "have been found". My statement was based on state department warnings, cases I have been informed of verbally (in primary/secondary care courses) and cannot corroborate so I won't use, and a general understanding of the laws involved (though, I'm no lawyer). My statement was clearly not specific enough and open to multiple interpretations. Please consider post number 61 as my clarifcation.

I think I have done an adequate job of supporting the statement I made, but not michael68's interpretation. I also think this poor thread had been derailed by an argument over semantics and should be split, which I won't do because I am so heavily involved in it.

 

[TCDiver1]

The crew can do a far better job of allocating their resources if they know who they have on board. I've always though it irresponsible to lead a DM to think you're an OW diver when you're something more.

Thats the point Mike. As a paying customer, when you get "allocated" without your consent, you got yourself a situation. I've seen it happen, its happened to me, and it will happen to you in time if you let it.

I suspect it hasn't happened to you yet because it tends to be tropical locations/operations where this occurs at from my experience. I know you spend a lot of time in cave country and/or colder locales where it doesn't seem to be as prevalent.

IMO, a paying customer should never be expected to look after any other paying customer, (other than their assigned buddy,) unless that paying customer choses to do so.

The problem i have with that is being expected to take care of someones elses customer just because i'm an instructor. I'll be there in a heartbeat to help out in an emergency if needed, but an operation that counts on that help, to do their job properly, is a slipshot operation IMO.

 

[HammerNoMore]

IMO, a paying customer should never be expected to look after any other paying customer, (other than their assigned buddy,) unless that paying customer choses to do so.

The DM/Instructor needs to be fully aware of the liability issue here as well. When I finish my DM this summer I will be covered under my shop's blanket liability policy. As a DMC I'm, theoreticly, covered under my instructors policy. However, I will only be covered if I am working for the shop. Anyone with this type of coverage would be taking a big risk in this case.

I plan to purchase my own indpendant coverage, a couple hundred bucks a year is worth the extra peace of mind.

James

 

[michaelp68]

I see. And if James just says that he's not a lawyer and that when he said "will be liable" he really meant "can be dragged into court" (which, in fact, is what I thought he was trying to say), the the discussion is sorted..... right?

R..

Diver0001, the short answer to your question is yes, you're right.

James, thank you for your explanation in your post number number 76. I'm not being sarcastic. I mean it when I say that I appreciate your effort to try to explain yourself and clear the air. We're just never going to agree on this, though.

I understand that you apparently meant something different from what you said. But your words were very clear that by lifting a finger to help, someone will be liable. Those were your words, not mine.

The plain meaning of those words is also very clear, and the plain meaning carries significance which you may not perceive. Your words do not advise others that they may get dragged into a lawsuit or that they may not have legal protections in some parts of the world that they may enjoy in others. Rather, they state that by assisting, there will be liability.

Pete, I disagree with you. This has not been an argument on my part, for sport or any other twisted reason, trying to push someone into a corner to "win" a point (even though my wife will tell you I've been known to do that once or twice. ) This argument has not been badgering to get a concession. Maybe it looks that way or feels that way to you or James or others too. But it's not.

James said something. I asked for fact that would indicate to all of us that what he said was true. He's been unwilling and unable to provide such fact. So, I don't think he should have made the statement. Period.

I never said that his representation is untrue. I'd be surprised if it's true, but I really don't know. That's why I asked for the facts to support it.

If it cannot be supported, then it should not have been stated has fact and should have been clarified to be an opinion, hunch, guess or whatever. But it should not have been stated as a factual representation about liability. It's obviously the uptight lawyer in me ( ), but I take factual representations to the public about liability very seriously.

Michael

 

[downunderjenn]

http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eacs_victims.html

http://sanjose.usembassy.gov/conseng.html

On a discussion with my mate on travelling.