Question re Death This Week in SoCal ...

[EricJ]

I dive this same boat and dive site often. The captain is very experienced and particularly safety conscious. Like most of the operations in this area, divers are not required to have a buddy. Being that this and several other boats drop off up to thirty or more divers at one site, I don't think mandated buddy-diving could be enforced. The kelp forests and varying visibility make becoming separated from your buddy a common occurrence. It is very likely this diver started out with a buddy or group.

I was deeply saddened to hear about the accident, but I don't believe the captain or crew are liable.

 

[Garrobo]

No and No.

 

[ianr33]

1)Hell No!
2)Probably No

 

[Steve50]

1. No

2. not in this country

 

[Guba]

The following post is made ONLY with some assumptions made:
Assuming the death was NOT strictly health related and in some way was linked to the diver's inexperience and/or training...

My answer to both questions would still be "no". As said over and over again in previous posts, the diver still has the ultimate responsibility to decide what is within his/her range of abilities. IF the boat captain and crew are held responsible for this tragedy, then the chain of responsibility could very well extend farther, possibly to the instructor, shop, and/or agency that provided (or arguably didn't provide) the training to make the diver safer. There could be some mitigating factor that might implicate the boat operator, but simply letting him on and off the boat isn't it.

 

[mjh]

No and Yes. You dive, you are over 18, you decide and accept the consequences.

 

[psychocabbage]

We are in a sue happy country and people continually propegate this notion by bring it up at every possible time. Its sick.

The way I see it:
He paid to do what he wanted to do. Regardless of how many dives the guy had, it was his CHOICE to do the dive solo. If he were trained, he knows the risk. He made his CHOICE.

The dive boat did his job and took him to where he wanted to dive. Simple.

I see no fault on the dive boat.

 

[drbill]

I don't think any of us can really offer much other than speculation here unless there is a good (accurate) source of information on this incident. Do we know that the DM and/or captain on board knew how many dives this individual had? Do we know from first hand information what the dive briefing contained, or the contents of any discussions between the deceased and the DM?

I have seen enough newly certified divers not only dive solo but do it deep and without redundancy. When given a chance, I have talked to them about this in an unofficial capacity (since I'm not a DM or instructor).

I don't want to assume anything in this case without adequate information about the details. Given that I see no reason for any action against the boat or crew until something is authenticated that might lead in that direction. I will assume the diver acted in an unenlightened manner until shown otherwise.

 

[TSandM]

I think, if you open this can of worms, it becomes a nightmare. If the boat is held responsible for the diver having a buddy, is it also responsible to go over his dive plan and make sure it matches his certification levels? Is it responsible for evaluating water conditions and seeing if they match the diver's experience level? At some point, things simply HAVE to become the responsibility of the individual diver.

I have been on boats where the policy is that all divers must dive as buddy pairs, and even that all buddy pairs must surface when either diver reaches gas limits. Others permit divers to resort themselves, and send pairs of low-on-gas divers to the surface while the others form new buddy teams. Some permit solo diving. If you permit solo diving, it would be my feeling that it is totally the responsibility of the individual diver to determine if he is, in fact, capable of executing the dive solo.

 

[Peter Guy]

Disclaimer -- I attended law school, I practiced law for 10 years, I ran my own business for 20+ years, I am now retired and starting to teach Scuba.

a. Should the boat operator be liable? Maybe, possibly but absolutely NOT a definite No. The operator is an expert in the operations of a dive boat and has, and should have, a duty of care to his paying customers which includes that the operator do what is REASONABLY PRUDENT to ensure his customers dive safely. To me, being a REASONABLY PRUDENT dive boat operator is going to require obtaining some basic information about the dive history of each passenger and then doing what is REASONABLE UNDER THE THEN EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES to match the customer with prudent dive practices.

I know this is contrary to what most of the SBrs who post on these threads believe but, as I've written before (all too many times) every party in these deals has an obligation and a duty of care. I do not believe, and I'm pretty sure it is the law in California, that the boat operator's only responsibility is to drive the boat.

In this case, quite frankly, I don't think a 14 dive diver has the knowledge or experience to have sufficient judgment to make decisions such as "Should I dive solo" or "Should I dive this spot that my hired EXPERT has taken me to." Being an expert in any business puts a lot of responsibility on the person and with that responsibility comes potential liability for NOT acting in a responsible manner.

FURTHER DISCLAIMER -- I am NOT saying the operator acted in any manner other than with the highest level of care. I also noted that the diver was said to be diving with "a group" which would indicate to me he was not solo diving. I (we) do not know what occurred in this specific case. BUT, I do not believe it is right, nor wise, to give a blanket pass to the expert in situations like this.

b. Only in a very limited situation, would I allow solo diving off my boat.

------------------
I just saw the prior post is from my wife -- we don't always agree!