Instructor liability?

[Phil_218]

My opinion is based on my experience and training as a law enforcement officer in the US.

I do not feel Diver #1 (instructor) would be criminaly liable, but most likely held civilally liable based on the scenario you described.

Your scenario described Diver #1's actions only as encouraging Diver #2 to dive again. This means Diver #2's choice to dive was conensual. Diver #1 did not do anything directly to cause the resulting death, therefore the intent was not there (knowingly, intentionally, or with criminal negligence). This would be different if he had an active part such as knowingly giving Diver #2 faulty equipment, intentionally shutting off Diver #2's tank, or some other similar action.

Civilally, I think Diver #1 would be working the rest of his life to repay the judgement awarded to Diver #2's family.

Just my .02

 

[String]

In most sane countries only 2 questions needed:

(i) is the other diver qualified ?
(ii) Was the diver under direct instruction at the time?

If yes to the first and no to the last there is no extra liability. An instructor cannot be responsible for his students once they've qualified.

 

[orange_diver]

I have seen a diver run out of air on a wreck dive but get to the surface safely by sharing air. Despite showing no symptoms, he was given oxygen as a precaution. Despite feeling fine, he did not dive again that weekend. He, the crew, and the other divers were all in agreement on this.

no doubt no one wanted this guy in the water again.

 

[jpcpat]

I am going to disagree with some of what you said. For one thing, I do not think anyone has training that will enable them to assist distressed divers "without putting himself at risk". Anything can and often does happen in stressful situations. The training reduces the potential risk, but does not eliminate it at all.

Second, just because you have the skills and training does not obligate you to help somone. You are under no legal obligation at all just because you are trained.

Drew,

Examples of assisting a distressed diver at no risk to the rescuer include:

From Shore/Deck of boat:
Encourage the diver to inflate his/her BCD.
Throw a line or bouyancy device to the diver.
Alert the crew to the problem.


In the water, we can usually tow an unconcious diver to safety without risk. Here, an instructor has been trained in first aid, and should be able to decide when to give rescue breaths, and be able to give them effectively (circumstances permitting). Sometimes circumstances might not permit, and level of experience comes into play here, too.

If we are talking about a panicked diver, anyone without rescue training should get clear and summon help. An instructor has been trained to stay clear and usually wait for the diver to wear himself out, then intervene after the danger to the rescuer has passed. In each case, a different set of actions is called for, and an instructor would rightfully be held to a higher standard. The instructor who swims off because this wasn't one of his students has quite a bit to answer for in my book

 

[bfw]

Correct on the legal tests (at least in English common law countries), but I think you latched on to the wrong limb. Dive buddies unquestionably owe each other a duty of care, but it is the limits of that duty and whether it was breached (#2) which is probably the defining issue.

And the standard for whether it was breached will be measured against a hypothetical reasonably prudent person of the defendant's knowledge and skills. A reasonably prudent person with instructional level training would be expected to "know better" more than a reasonably prudent OW diver.

 

[String]

Again in most sane countries there is no duty of care if there is no contract.

 

[BDSC]

In most sane countries only 2 questions needed:

(i) is the other diver qualified ?
(ii) Was the diver under direct instruction at the time?

If yes to the first and no to the last there is no extra liability. An instructor cannot be responsible for his students once they've qualified.

Unfortunately here in the U.S. we seem to have lost our sanity. A woman can go to a fast food joint and buy coffee, then spill it on herself because she was careless, sue the ff joint and win.

 

[Dr Neil]

Remember one key point.... both divers were out of shape middle aged guys doing what appears to be an attempt to regain the the trappings of their youth.

The old guy going on 18 ego trumps all common sense.

On the serious side....
Did they dive with the same operator both days? If they did, why in the world did the dive operator let Diver #2 on the boat the day after the first incident?

 

[Web Monkey]

Unfortunately here in the U.S. we seem to have lost our sanity. A woman can go to a fast food joint and buy coffee, then spill it on herself because she was careless, sue the ff joint and win.

The woman sued because McDonalds refused to cover her medical bills even though she received burns severe enough to require hospitalization and skin grafts on her legs and "private parts" because McDonalds served it's coffee hotter than everybody else.

This was even after they had settled more than 700 other lawsuits for the same thing.

I have to say that I've never filed a personal injury lawsuit, but if somebody gave me a cup of coffee that burned my private parts badly enough to need surgery, I'd be calling a lawyer too.

McFacts abut the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Terry

 

[BDSC]

The woman sued because McDonalds refused to cover her medical bills even though she received burns severe enough to require hospitalization and skin grafts on her legs and "private parts" because McDonalds served it's coffee hotter than everybody else.

This was even after they had settled more than 700 other lawsuits for the same thing.

I have to say that I've never filed a personal injury lawsuit, but if somebody gave me a cup of coffee that burned my private parts badly enough to need surgery, I'd be calling a lawyer too.

McFacts abut the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Terry

Thanks for sharing that. A lot of times you never really get all the facts in cases like that. This is another link to pretty much the same thing but a little more detail.

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case