Ginnie Springs, CDA, and Dive Instructor sued over drowning death

[drrich2]

Yes, though by checking in divers and wrist banding them at their cert level, you can create an argument that it created a duty of care. That they should've also had people at the water ensuring that no one gets in with scuba equipment unless they had a wrist band.

Let's remember the suit that almost bankrupted the NSS-CDS because they did not do a good enough job keeping unqualified divers out of a cave.

Sad to hear this, but sadly not surprised. It seems there's this bizarre expectation the property owners/managers are obligated to, figuratively speaking, stand outside policing adults and consistently ready to apply 'bubble wrap' measures to them.

I'm curious what would have to happen in the U.S. to make it standard legal practice that properly informed adults are responsible for the consequences of their own choices?

 

[kensuf]

Let's remember the suit that almost bankrupted the NSS-CDS because they did not do a good enough job keeping unqualified divers out of a cave.

It was the legal fees that nearly bankrupted the NSSCDS. The case against the NSSCDS itself was dismissed. The NSSCDS does not have liability insurance, when I was treasurer I tried to negotiate it but it was prohibitively expensive.

In this case, every single person that passes through the gates goes by at least one sign that says divers must register and they are asked by a guard at the gate if they are diving, then handed a yellow ticket that shows what they are there to do. That ticket is then given to the front desk, where the staff again confirm what the activities the attendee is there to do.

If the person didn't check in for diving, he lied at the gate and broke the posted rules. Plain as that.

 

[Alekseolsen]

Phew. As a European, the only valid way this should end is with whomever is suing Ginne beeing imprisoned for wrongful lawsuit. I mean, suing Ginnie is so far out the court should lie in their face and slap them.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'm curious what would have to happen in the U.S. to make it standard legal practice that properly informed adults are responsible for the consequences of their own choices?

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

--William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, scene 2​

​

IMO, the goal is established by attorneys looking to make the biggest possible score for their clients, and, of course, themselves. If you successfully make a deep pocket entity a part of the suit, even though common sense suggests they should not be, you get big bucks. Who cares what precedent you may be setting?

 

[boulderjohn]

If the person didn't check in for diving, he lied at the gate and broke the posted rules. Plain as that.

Yep.

And that does not seem to matter one bit.

The NSS-CDS did not have insurance because it was prohibitively expensive, and the attorney fees almost bankrupted them. Where is the consolation that they were in fact innocent? Did that get them their fees back?

 

[cerich]

That is probably a question for the legal scholars, but I imagine that it would be difficult to roll things back, as you would have to do it industry wide. Because lets say if PADI did that, but SDI didn't. In a lawsuit against PADI, the plaintiff would make the case that PADI is negligent that they aren't doing the "industry standard" procedure of doing the instructor QA.

There are no industry standards for diving access rules at land based sites, particularly since the water itself is public property, so this case will rely on who makes the best arguments.

There is an industry standard, RSTC bylaws for membership require there be a QA process in place.

 

[boulderjohn]

I am sure you have heard liability lawyers advertise that they only get paid if they win. I sued the person who caused the accident that broke my body up years ago, and that was what I heard from the attorneys on all the advertisements. When I began the suit, I had to sign a statement that said I understood that under state law, attorneys are entitled to have their expenses paid, whether they win or lose.

 

[kensuf]

Yep.

And that does not seem to matter one bit.

The NSS-CDS did not have insurance because it was prohibitively expensive, and the attorney fees almost bankrupted them. Where is the consolation that they were in fact innocent? Did that get them their fees back?

Exactly. We do need some tort reform.

 

[Johnoly]

As with any legal case, you can sue anyone for any reason.

But what will be interesting from the Ginnie standpoint is where the actual death occurred.
Remember that in Florida there are 4 aspects to a water site.
*) The shore land/dirt - owned by a private entity/county/city/state/etc
*) The physical water column - the State of Florida owns all natural fresh water columns
*) The dirt/sand underneath the water column - can be owned privately or public entity
*) The Airspace directly above the actual water column - owned privately or public entity
There are zillions of Fl legal cases asking to determine which of the 4 above & who is the owner and then go down the rabbit hole of Riparian Rights to access that water column (it's a mess).
That's why Blue Heron Bridge for hunting is so contested.

 

[Manatee Diver]

Sad to hear this, but sadly not surprised. It seems there's this bizarre expectation the property owners/managers are obligated to, figuratively speaking, stand outside policing adults and consistently ready to apply 'bubble wrap' measures to them.

TBH that is what the compliant expects, it claims that Ginnie was negligent because they didn't have rescue divers ready to respond to emergencies. Literally no one has rescue divers on site, let alone right there to assist in an emergency.

Purely IMO Ginnie followed the standard and customary procedures of the area among commercial operators. No site has people checking wrist bands at the water, they have exterior assess controls that do their best to filter divers from non-divers. And give divers a higher scrutiny level by checking certs and that they have a buddy (as required by cert level). But they aren't tearing through vehicles to look for gear that might be hidden.

There is an industry standard, RSTC bylaws for membership require there be a QA process in place.

In that case they would have to remove that to do the scenario that @boulderjohn describes.