Filmmaker Rob Stewart's family files wrongful death lawsuit

[oldschoolto]

Jim, I see your point and I agree that CCR can be dangerous if used with less than the utmost care and diligence. However, three things ring through the posts you have been making.

a) you believe Peter Sotis was acting unethically
and
b) you believe Rob Stewart made some kind of newbie mistake
and
c) you believe that this is a diving accident

The complaint does not address #1 or #2 at all aside from pointing out that AH planned the dives. It does, however, address #3 because if you read carefully what is being said, it does not really argue that there was diving accident. It argues that there was a failure of proper procedure on board the boat by two companies and two individuals who should have been more on the ball than they were.

In other words, you keep coming back to what went wrong with the dive. What if you looked at it from the perspective that there WAS no dive happening when the accident took place? The dive was over. The divers were on the surface trying to get back on a boat. That's where things went wrong.

A number of years ago the shop where I was working had an accident during a guided dive. A diver was standing on a pier adjusting his weight belt and had a heart attack. When he collapsed he rolled into the water and it was investigated as a "diving accident" because he was dressed in diving gear and he was apparently in the water when he died.

Was it a diving accident? You tell me. Is it a diving accident when the dive is over and the divers are apparently safely back on the surface and trying to get on the boat, or is it a "boating" accident? What appears to be the tactic here is that the plaintiff wants this handled as a "boating" accident and wants to look at what happend on the boat that allowed one person to pass out and sink without anyone noticing it while at the same time they managed to save another person who was having (possibly) a similar problem.

You're blustering a lot about how this shouldn't have happend and how everyone involved are a bunch of idiots but if you look at it from the point of view of it being a problem with surface support and not a problem with the dive itself, then a different picture emerges.

R..

Well let's look at the few "facts" we may have... Rob has a Facebook page asking for a quicky CCR course and wants to start shooting film right away.. Looking for a short cut to what he knows is a very long learning curve..

Sotis has a known history of pushing the envelope and doing things that other CCR DIVERS think are foolish and dangerous.. He did train Rob in only a few dives before signing him off as a CCR diver and off they went to go deep down to film..

We don't know why Peter went on that last dive or why Rob went along.. Both of those moves were bone head and stupid...

When they surfaced Peter was in trouble and need help... Ron is said to have given the all clear I'm okay signal..

In the few seconds / minute that passed as Peter was pulled on to the boat.. Rob is gone.. why.. We may never know.. All he had to do was dump weights and go on his bailout bottle and inflation of his bc..As far as we know, He did none of these things..

This was not a boating accident.. As Rob was still in the water and not safely on the boat... The boat crew was working on the diver that had problems...As Rob said he was okay.. I don't see a problem with that.. Now Rob was not okay and should have never said it.. And his lack of knowledge and experience with the CCR is mostly why he is dead.. even if a boat crew member was watching over Rob.. It's my guess that Rob would still be Dead..

Sad the way it worked out.. But, there were some stupidity going on in Peters and Rob's dive training and making those dives that day.. And the last bounce dive that killed Rob and put Peter in a medical emergency...

Jim...

 

[Wookie]

My question is more hypothetical than specific to this case.

I am not privy to the info that others have, and I don't know any of the parties involved in this case, but if a more experienced professional (Sotis or the boat captain, etc) warned Stewart of dire consequences and then the professional went ahead with the dives anyway, aren't they even more at fault because they participated in/took money or film credits, for an activity that they knew was unwise and warned their client/student not to do? Is having a client/student sign a waiver enough to relieve a professional of responsibility when engaging in an activity the professional deems dangerous?

Some captains run a tight ship, and keep their clients on a short leash based on their skills, to limit the divers' and the captain's liability. Other captains cater to a client base that want more freedom to do as they please. Neither captain should be more responsible for the behavior of their divers. However, if a captain recognizes a dangerous activity and allows that activity to be performed off of their boat then they maybe they are being negligent.

On a different tangent, is the dive boat a taxi to the site or is it a dive support platform? Is it a first response station? Is it a surface support provider?

If the boat has a loose hand rail and a passenger falls then the captain might be responsible.
How can a captain be responsible for what a diver does once the diver exits the boat?
Is the captain supposed to know more than their divers? What if a captain is old school and is only skilled in open circuit diving? How would they even know if their ccr divers are diving safely or not?

A friend of mine owns a few restaurants. They serve at least 1000 people per day and many more on busy weekends. I was surprised at how often they call for a first responder for a customer. Rarely, if ever, does it have anything to do with the restaurant's fault. Some customers will apologize for not watching their blood sugar, etc and others will complain and blame the tater tots.

I can tell you how the coast guard feels based on an incident very similar to this a few years ago. A Captain for Lynnhaven Dive Center and 2 deckhands took a group of divers on a dive to a site. One of the divers was a diver who had been 86'd from a number of boats in the Chesapeake area. He was diving a doubles tech style setup for practice, which was allowed by the boat. He surfaced from his dive in distress, flopped and twitched on the surface for a short time, and disappeared. The divemaster jumped in the water to perform a rescue, got to where the diver disappeared, and realized that he wasn't equipped to perform a rescue, went back to the boat, got his dive gear on, went back in the water...... Long story short, it turned into a recovery, not a rescue. The Admiralty Law Judge held a hearing. The findings were that the boat has no duty of care to a diver while diving, but when they hit the surface, than they are no longer divers, but are passengers. The deckhand (divemaster is not recognized by the CG) was not prepared to rescue the man overboard. The Captain had internal procedures that whenever divers were in the water, the Captain would directly supervise the deck. The Captain was in the galley preparing lunch. The Captain lost her license.

All of this is available to read for yourself at https://www.uscg.mil/alj/decisions/2013/SR-2013-14_Bryson.pdf Becky Bryson was the Captain. Craig Jenni was the Lawyer defending Becky.

 

[oldschoolto]

I can tell you how the coast guard feels based on an incident very similar to this a few years ago. A Captain for Lynnhaven Dive Center and 2 deckhands took a group of divers on a dive to a site. One of the divers was a diver who had been 86'd from a number of boats in the Chesapeake area. He was diving a doubles tech style setup for practice, which was allowed by the boat. He surfaced from his dive in distress, flopped and twitched on the surface for a short time, and disappeared. The divemaster jumped in the water to perform a rescue, got to where the diver disappeared, and realized that he wasn't equipped to perform a rescue, went back to the boat, got his dive gear on, went back in the water...... Long story short, it turned into a recovery, not a rescue. The Admiralty Law Judge held a hearing. The findings were that the boat has no duty of care to a diver while diving, but when they hit the surface, than they are no longer divers, but are passengers. The deckhand (divemaster is not recognized by the CG) was not prepared to rescue the man overboard. The Captain had internal procedures that whenever divers were in the water, the Captain would directly supervise the deck. The Captain was in the galley preparing lunch. The Captain lost her license.

All of this is available to read for yourself at https://www.uscg.mil/alj/decisions/2013/SR-2013-14_Bryson.pdf Becky Bryson was the Captain. Craig Jenni was the Lawyer defending Becky.

Well, I guess we need to have multiple rescue divers kitted up on deck ready at a moment's notice to go... We'll need crew members with life lines at the bow, port, starboard ready to throw rescue lines... And we'll we also say that a captain and dive boat owner should have known a Deco chamber bag is needed..

The list of stuff to blame never ends in hindsight... If you're that afraid of dieing. Sit at home and watch TV..

Jim...

 

[Wookie]

I don't think they wanted all that, I think they wanted basic MOB procedures followed. Yes, a DM should have a 15# floatation vest ready to grab and put on. Yes, a DM should have a life ring with line ready to take with them. Yes, if you're going to write a procedure, you should follow it. And in some cases, procedures are required.

 

[Wookie]

Sometimes you have to ask yourself a few questions like, all inspected vessels are required by law to hold a lifejacket drill within 24 hours of getting underway to include all passengers. Ever seen it done, except on a liveaboard? Every inspected passenger vessel is required to hold and log a fire drill monthly. Ever seen it done? Every inspected passenger vessel is required to hold a MOB drill monthly. Ever seen one? The requirements are easily found. 46 CFR 122.520 - Abandon ship and man overboard drills and training.

 

[kelemvor]

There were seemed to be multiple things happening that have led to his death. If the equipment functioned properly, shouldn't Rob be passed out at the surface?

That was discussed upthread. Apparently some technical detail about rebreathers can cause them to fill with water at the surface if you remove your mouth from the mouthpiece and that would make you extremely negative. There is something called a gag strap that can help prevent this I think. I don't know anything about rebreathers or gag straps, I'm paraphrasing from memory what was discussed in detail previously in this thread on that facet of the accident.

 

[boulderjohn]

As threads of this kind go on for quite some time, we see a couple tendencies that I hope people will consider before posting.

1. With hundreds of posts already made, people new to the thread don't feel like reading them all, and they jump in with an opinion (or question) that was dealt with effectively a hundred posts earlier. People who responded to it effectively a hundred posts earlier have either abandoned the thread or don't feel like repeating what they wrote before, so that old issue gets a new life.
2. People use what to them seems like common sense to explain what they think the law for that situation should be, sometimes writing as if nothing like this has ever happened before so there must not be any laws or regulations in place. Their strongly stated opinions often overwhelm the more knowledgeable opinions of the attorneys, boat captains, etc. who know the actual laws that apply to the situation.

 

[wedivebc]

That was discussed upthread. Apparently some technical detail about rebreathers can cause them to fill with water at the surface if you remove your mouth from the mouthpiece and that would make you extremely negative. There is something called a gag strap that can help prevent this I think. I don't know anything about rebreathers or gag straps, I'm paraphrasing from memory what was discussed in detail previously in this thread on that facet of the accident.

A gag strap will (may) prevent a mouthpiece from accidentally falling out of the mouth of an unconscious diver. It will not prevent a diver from intentionally removing the mouthpiece.
Depending on the design of the rebreather the amount of time for the rebreather to flood when the mouthpiece is removed while the DSV is left open is quite variable. For example when teaching students on the Megalodon I have them remove the mouthpiece with the DSV open while in the pool. The object of the lesson is to observe that after 30 seconds of holding the open mouthpiece away from the mouth, the water entering the loop will remain in the exhale counterlung and that the loop is easily recoverable.

 

[doctormike]

As threads of this kind go on for quite some time, we see a couple tendencies that I hope people will consider before posting.

1. With hundreds of posts already made, people new to the thread don't feel like reading them all, and they jump in with an opinion (or question) that was dealt with effectively a hundred posts earlier. People who responded to it effectively a hundred posts earlier have either abandoned the thread or don't feel like repeating what they wrote before, so that old issue gets a new life.
2. People use what to them seems like common sense to explain what they think the law for that situation should be, sometimes writing as if nothing like this has ever happened before so there must not be any laws or regulations in place. Their strongly stated opinions often overwhelm the more knowledgeable opinions of the attorneys, boat captains, etc. who know the actual laws that apply to the situation.

This is one of the best posts on any topic that I have ever read. I nominate it for a sticky.

 

[tilikum]

Not only a sticky, but perhaps it is time to lock the thread?