Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[AXL72]

But isn't this another version of mommy-government? If people want to be "lured" into danger by the morbid curiousity, isn't that another God-given right to self-govern? Where oh where does it end?

OMG....have you not heard of an "attractive nuisance"

look it up please and you will see the answer to your question.

 

[Boatlawyer]

OMG....have you not heard of an "attractive nuisance"

look it up please and you will see the answer to your question.

AXL-

First, you might want to get some ice for your knee. It must be hurting from all that jerking.

Second, time for a logic check. The idea that leaving a dead diver in the bowels of a dangerous silt filled corridor 130 feet deep is an attractive nuisance, means you think that otherwise sane, safety conscious people who would never think of going in there would undertake the journey just to see a dead body? Who needs to do that when you can pay $20 and see a hundred of them at the Bodies Exhibition.

Finally, your rant about "throwing money" at the problem to make it safe to rescue and recover careless divers misses the mark. Whose money should be thrown at it? Should we take the money from oh, say, Social Security or Medicare, and divert it to diver rescue? Just who sould fund this grand scheme?

 

[AXL72]

AXL-

First, you might want to get some ice for your knee. It must be hurting from all that jerking.

Second, time for a logic check. The idea that leaving a dead diver in the bowels of a dangerous silt filled corridor 130 feet deep is an attractive nuisance, means you think that otherwise sane, safety conscious people who would never think of going in there would undertake the journey just to see a dead body? Who needs to do that when you can pay $20 and see a hundred of them at the Bodies Exhibition.

Finally, your rant about "throwing money" at the problem to make it safe to rescue and recover careless divers misses the mark. Whose money should be thrown at it? Should we take the money from oh, say, Social Security or Medicare, and divert it to diver rescue? Just who sould fund this grand scheme?

Does not matter about the money. The point is that no one needs to be unsafe about going about retrieving the bodies.

Again, safety first!!!!

How much is life worth?

Talk about ethical questions and putting a cost on life? My scale says that even $300,000 is a super deal compared to losing a life. How does your scale look?

 

[Boatlawyer]

Uh, first, the analogy is not the same. But, I'll play anyway.

Assuming I was required to be rescued as the result of even my own stupidity as opposed to an oncoming drunk driver's, you can bet the appropriate agencies would be billing me, and because I am responsible and carry the insurance the law requires, my insurance would pay up.

When I last checked, insurance was not required to dive. Maybe it should be.

 

[Boatlawyer]

Speaking of living in a bubble. Here's a news flash, prices are placed on the value of our lives every day. Just ask someone without health insurance.

This discussion began with many people commenting about taking "personal responsibility" for their dives. My question began to explore the limits of that personal responibility by extending it to the aftermath of our decisions.

Warnings and waivers are supposed to apprise people of the risks they are undertaking. It is a complicated area of law and not for the attention challenged.
That is why lawyers have to deal with it. If you think that is super-cautious, try getting on a dive boat without signing one.

As for the $300,000 price tag being a "deal" compared to losing a life? I can think of some people whose lives are worth a lot more, and, some, a lot less.

By the way, this is my last post to AXL on this issue. It is getting way to off-topic.

 

[AXL72]

i am way too tired to go into why that is the market at work, and why we're better off with more expensive but also higher quality services

price is just information; you should be able to tell something about what you are getting by the price you pay

I wish my clients thought like that. But they don't and the law does not think like that, usually.

It usually comes down to arguments over "agreed upon price" and change orders.


But then again, we are talking about verbal contracts and hand exchange of money, so "buyer beware", like andy pointed out, holds true

 

[AXL72]

NOTE: When we talk about $300,000 price tag, we are talking about rescuers with specialiced skills.

I value all life, even a crackhead's life....but again, we are talking about a rescuer's life being put in danger, not a crackhead's life, whose life I just happen to value the same. I am not qualified to play God and place depreciated value on life

Just addressing the ethical question that was raised. I just want to raise the issue before I die and someone acuses me of being irresponsible by putting my body recovey team's life in danger.

I am quite relieved at the news report stating that the bodies have been recovered without incident.

 

[wedivebc]

Does not matter about the money. The point is that no one needs to be unsafe about going about retrieving the bodies.

Again, safety first!!!!

How much is life worth?

Talk about ethical questions and putting a cost on life? My scale says that even $300,000 is a super deal compared to losing a life. How does your scale look?

How much is a body worth should be the question, and to whom.

 

[AXL72]

I am more concerned about investigation about cause of death and to deter others from trying to see dead bodies on the wreck than I am about retrieving a body that has any value at all.

The price I hypothetically brought up about a life had to do with a living body, not a dead one.

So...learning whether there was foul play and to deter future foul play = fairly good worth of the body(ies) and to recover it (them).

Rermoving the body to deter others from searching for it and dieing = fairly good worth of the body(ies) and to recover it(them).

 

[carldarl]

Warnings and waivers are supposed to apprise people of the risks they are undertaking. It is a complicated area of law and not for the attention challenged.
That is why lawyers have to deal with it.

Soooooo....... Based on your comment, I should start taking my attorney diving with me so he can interpret the real meaning of all those warnings and waivers? That is a pretty provocative statement.