Family sues resort over son who died diving in The Crater

[PuMpUi]

Hmm ...

Why not call "Rick" @ Lesser & Associates (1-800-DIVELAW) and see what HE has to say ... he seems to be pretty good at figuring out these kinda thangs ... and I'd be willing to bet that HIS opinion is one that most people (at least 12) would listen to !!!


IMHO.

 

[boulderjohn]

Quoting from their website:

They say they have carved a tunnel to allow access to crystal clear mineral water.

Ah! So you believe everything you read in an advertisement.

 

[reo]

Ah! So you believe everything you read in an advertisement.

When I dived there, the visibility was better than 50 ft.

Ron

 

[Scott]

Utah law states that geothermic pools are required to have a lifeguard. I'm not sure if I would classify the Crater as a 'pool'. It's more of a Quarry.

I bet the owners of the Crater will defend it in this sense. There is no law stating Quarries need lifeguards.

You have the Utah code that references this?
I agree I wouldn't consider it a 'pool' but I also would not call it a quarry either. Spring would be a closer definition.

I guess the courts will determine what it is.

When I dived there, the visibility was better than 50 ft.

Ron

Must have been that one day in 2009.

 

[reo]

Must have been that one day in 2009.

It was the day after Thanksgiving 2005.:cool2:

Ron

 

[Ayisha]

We have created a tunnel through the rock wall at ground level and built decks and a soaking area for our guests and the public to access the crystal clear mineral water. You can go swimming, scuba diving, snorkeling or enjoy a therapeutic soak.

Businesses should really be careful about overstating what they are providing, especially when they are now being sued partly because of the visibility affecting how fast the victim was noticed having difficulty and how long it took to retrieve him. Some simple hedge words like "often" crystal clear or "relatively" clear or a range in visibility would go a long way. Of course, due diligence, proper maintenance and attention to safety and legal issues goes an even longer way in avoiding accidents and lawsuits.

 

[Clanggedin]

You have the Utah code that references this?
I agree I wouldn't consider it a 'pool' but I also would not call it a quarry either. Spring would be a closer definition.

I guess the courts will determine what it is.


Must have been that one day in 2009.

I don't know the code for the law,but in every article I have read they have stated that the family is using that law to try and sue. The law was passed in 2009.

 

[Scott]

I don't know the code for the law,but in every article I have read they have stated that the family is using that law to try and sue. The law was passed in 2009.

This is the law that was passed in 2009.
I find nothing about lifegards in it, it is more about sanitation of pools. I guess a good attorney could spin the language about skimmers and pumps to mean visibility.
That is why I asked if you had found it.

We shall see what the judge says.

The guys holding up OK?

 

[ScubaSarus]

This is the law that was passed in 2009.
I find nothing about lifegards in it, it is more about sanitation of pools. I guess a good attorney could spin the language about skimmers and pumps to mean visibility.
That is why I asked if you had found it.

We shall see what the judge says.

The guys holding up OK?

Now what about local ordinances ? Sometime local ordinances are quite strict when it comes to safety. I assume they mention in the article that a lifeguard should of been on duty due to an agreement or local ordinance then.

Otherwise yea, the lawyers will spin a lot as you say.

But those rules you linked to seem to govern sanitation as opposed to water safety.

 

[bleeb]

Since the rescuers are being sued as well, how much of an encouragement is this for people to not get involved? Some people will help regardless so it doesn't affect them, but those that were sitting on the fence already, is this additional encouragement to stay there. Alternatively, it's been suggested that including the rescuers may be a legal tactic, which is all fine for the plaintiff, but is discouraging involvement a secondary consequence which doesn't benefit the public in general?