Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[J.R.]

Gotta agree here, with the main point being as BL mentioned, that a vessel for transportation (getting you from point A to point B) as a primary or sole purpose, is inherently different from a vessel intended for diving.

Well... I have to bow to the superior knowledge of those who argue these points for a living... but I'm minded of Naval Regs which relieve the Commanding Officer of a vessel from responsibility in only two specific instances:

1: From the the time the bow of his vessel enters a dry dock environment until the time the bow subsequently leaves the dry dock environment and;

2: From the time the pilot boards his vessel when transiting the Panama Canal until the time the pilot leaves his vessel.

My point here (which is not to say I don't appreciate YOUR points) is that the "hold harmless" document signed and the law as stated on this thread, seem to not want to bother parsing the activities of the operation. Personally, I have no issue with the diver taking all responsibilities for their activities once they enter the water until the time they are 'feet dry' on the boat... but the all or nothing nature of things seems to short change the consumer's legal expectation of a safe transit.

This is also particularly interesting in light of Boatlawyer's observation (many, many posts ago) that the dive-op's agreement was "for transportation only"... clearly indicating that their function was in no way related to the act of diving.

Souls on board are souls on board...

But... as was pointed out before... this IS somewhat of a side issue to the fundimental question that was running on the thread regarding liability for the diving structure itself...

 

[Boatlawyer]

Well, if you want to get into whys and wherefores, remember admiralty law has been around for hundreds of years and recreational diving, less than 50. Dive boats are barely a blip on the admiralty radar, as are most recreational vessels, for example jet skis.

The statutory prohibition on waivers is part of the tension among insurers, cruise lines and the public and came about because cruise ships were placing waivers of liability on the backs of their tickets. When the statute put a stop to that, they reduced the statute of limitation on claims to one year, which can really bite a land lawyer in the butt, by the way. Those limitations have been upheld.

In Schultz, the plaintiff tried to use the federal courts and admiralty law to escape the clear intent of the release signed by the decedent. The statute borrowed language from the definition of "coastwise trade" especially the "between" (different) u.s. ports and us/foreign ports. As I previously said, this distinction is why certain gaming "cruises to nowhere" escape our coastwise laws.

But as others have pointed out, I wonder what would happen if dive boat operators tried to use the releases to absolve liability for say, running over a diver with the boat.

 

[ams511]

Florida is very pro-business. The ability to release from gross negligence is a fairly recent development if I recall correctly, within the last 15 years, before that, releases from GROSS negligence were void as agaist public policy.

I wonder how much someone paid to get that passed through the legislature?

 

[AXL72]

Heck... I can use it in a sentence...

"The '10' I saw on the beach yesterday, when my beloved wife of 35 years and to whom I am thoroughly and completely devoted to but was 2000 miles away at a business meeting at the time... sure was an attractive nuisance."

... ok... didn't say it would be a GOOD sentence...

omfg...bad sentence but i feel ya.

too funny.

 

[H2Andy]

But as others have pointed out, I wonder what would happen if dive boat operators tried to use the releases to absolve liability for say, running over a diver with the boat.

if it's just negligence, it's probably covered

if you call it gross negligence, you're in for a fight

if you call it reckless, you're probably past the waiver

in my experience, pleadings follow the law and play lose with the facts to make the case stick, survive a Motion to Dismiss, get into discovery, and start settlement talks

96% of all civil cases settle

(just had an awful arbitration decision today; am in foul mood; need more beer)

 

[AXL72]

Just a point of fact.. Carrying a dive reel is NOT a blatant statement "I am going to penetrate this wreck against advise". that to me is an uninformed response on the use of dive reels... I carry a reel, a spool and 2 bags on every deep dive and most reef dives.why? a reel can be used with a lift bag to carry something to the surface or as I use it ...to shoot the bag from the bottom or wherever I am in the water column to use as an assent line in a drift dive, in an emergency or for continuing training. A nice colored bag is great for the boat to see if you are pulled off a wreck in a current and can't come up on a designated line.They can see the bag surface and keep track of where you are drifting.The reel can also be used to shoot a bag to the surface with a slate attached in case of emergency to notify the surface team of a problem ( as long as they are aware of your dive plan). I wont dive with a dive operation that will take my personal safety gear away.. whats next...no pony bottles?

OK...why did the cops confiscate my bloody fireworks, then???? hmmmmm?

I wasn't gonna use em no way.


OK....who keeeps deleting my posts? Yesterday I was back up to 783. Grrrrrrrr.

I bet it was that ape orens.....grrrr:light:

 

[AXL72]

i

(just had an awful arbitration decision today; am in foul mood; need more beer)

now u have to share with the rest of the class...ol wise one


***BTW...You made me cry when I laughed so hard at one of your posts from last evening***


More boooty kissing required to get you to share?

 

[H2Andy]

well ... unfortunately attorney client privilege prevents me from sharing, but this arbitrator got just about every fact he could possibly get wrong wrong

more beer!

 

[AXL72]

ok...u get more beer as i prepare more boooty kissing

 

[Gombessa]

well ... unfortunately attorney client privilege prevents me from sharing, but this arbitrator got just about every fact he could possibly get wrong wrong

more beer!

Must...hold...tongue...evidentiary...priv...ethical...dut...:light:

On a good day, you break out a bottle of bubbly. On a bad day, it seems the bubbly breaks you. Thankfully, tomorrow is always a new day.