SCUBA - An inherently dangerous activity

[Genesis]

OK, so let's solve the problem of people playing the "lawsuit protection" game by demanding C-cards, and quit driving the demand for the debasement of training.

Let's get diving defined as an "activity of agreed risk" in the law of the various states, and promote a uniform waiver (under statute) that absolutely bars such suits.

If such a waiver is signed, and a suit is filed anyway, the law can provide that all fees and costs of the person sued are recoverable from the person and counsel that bring the frivolous suit.

Poof - problem solved.

Now a landowner, boatowner, etc just must obtain a legitimately signed waiver from each participant. If they sign it, that's the end of the discussion. The only remaining debate is whether the person really did sign the waiver.

For these kinds of problems there are solutions.

There are activities that are inherently dangerous. Frankly, PADI and the rest do a good job of making the case that SCUBA is one of them - after all, you ARE intentionally putting yourself on life support to go in the water like this!

What 'ya think?

 

[Uncle Pug]

Let's not.

 

[Genesis]

Why not Pug?

It is, is it not?

 

[FIXXERVI6]

why ? If you have yoru C card whats the big deal, if not, go get it.

 

[Uncle Pug]

Why not Pug?
It is, is it not?

... it isn't listed as such... but all activities that are so listed are excluded from coverage.

 

[Genesis]

why ? If you have yoru C card whats the big deal, if not, go get it.

Here's the argument for it:

1. Insurance is unreasonably expensive for both instructors and other operations connected with diving. It drives many of these decisions, and not always in a rational way. This removes the pressure on such carriers by statute.

2. You're already signing the waivers. This standardizes them. Instead of 27 different forms on 27 different boats, there is one form that is used for boats, dive shops, instruction, etc. I've seen everything from a single 4x6 sheet of paper with one signature (that basically says "I waive everything") to a multiple page 27-chapter waiver that I must initial per-paragraph.

3. Many people sign these waivers and "don't really mean it." This law would insure that you do really mean it, as disclosure of the statute and its absolute bar on attempted challenges would be part of the waiver. You'd thus KNOW that what you were doing was enforceable, and that a suit would be a completely waste of (your, or your heirs) time.

4. "Card collecting" would no longer be a common practice. Now you'd buy instruction, rather than certification. Why? Nobody would need to do more than make clear disclosure of what they know in order to be protected. This would actually improve the state of instruction.

5. You can buy insurance for "inherently dangerous activities" (personally, on your life, for example) and in doing so your actual exposure will be queried. Well, gee, it already is. Every life insurance company I've ever seen an app for has asked about diving, and a "yes" triggers a whole host of secondary questions. DAN, by the way, offers life insurance without those questions (it is simply assumed that you ARE diving or you wouldn't be buying it from them!)

 

[FIXXERVI6]

Ok I'm sold.

 

[bwerb]

I like some of the European ski laws...I think there is a bit of comparison possible here. In North America lift tickets are ridiculously stupidly expensive largely because of liability insurance. Also you'll note the vast swaths of ski fencing and "out-of-bounds" markers all over the place. Read the back of your lift ticket...yikes. Why? Because the bozo factor and loser lottery who do blatently silly things, injure themselves and then sue. In Europe...welcome to the resort...don't fall off any cliffs, but if you do...it's not our fault. End of story.

I think this is all really a societal problem more than a "diving" problem. It still comes back to personal responsibility. Stop blaming everyone else for your mistakes. Listen to Forrest Gump's observation "$hit happens".

 

[Genesis]

Yes, but the only way we can codify this for our sport is to make it part of the law.

Unfortunate that we need to, but it appears that we do.

 

[hoover]

1. You can't escape liability for an inherently dangerous activity
in most states.

2. In most states an inherently dangerous activity means strict
liability...not necessary to prove negligence. Examples are:
using explosives, high tension lines, steam boilers, and by statute
dog bites.

3. People that lose lawsuits don't have any money. To try and stick a
lawyer for every lawsuit that a jury didn't like would shut the
courthouse for all legal actions.

Think chess, not checkers