Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park

[wetb4igetinthewater]

@R80

You think less than a point difference in buoyancy really makes a difference? For a close to properly weighted student (key words "close to properly weighted") .77 lbs isn't noticeable.

When I weight my students, I do it in 2 lb increments, as I don't have half pound weights. Maybe I should cut a couple 1 lb.'ers in half then? As theoretically, a student could be 1.5 lbs overweighted as taking off two pounds could make them 0.5 positive with a nearly empty cylinder. Of course this could be compensated by breathing, but that's not the idea in proper weighting.

The issue here is that the deceased was so extremely overweighted, weight wasn't ditchable, didn't have the dry suit hose that might have helped (I say might the deceased was likely so extremely foot heavy that if she did have the inflator hose, her neck seal would likely burp allowing water in and not provide much positive buoyancy), didn't have a pool session with the dry suit, etc., etcl.

If we shaved off 0.77 lb from the weight she had, she'd still have died.

I don't think the elevation argument is valid period. When I hear that argument being placed, I interpret that the person either isn't a diver or doesn't understand physics and the potential buoyancy swing from lungs.

 

[pauldw]

There has been no answer filed.

there is not a deadline for the response.

I was thinking that in Montana you can default someone if they don't respond in 20 days.

 

[Vallonen]

Reading this cluster **** was truly mind bending.

Instructor? As far as I'm concerned this young woman / student had no instructor.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think my comments related to altitude can be summed up in this phrase--the altitude of the dive had zero, zilch, nada to do with the outcome. Okay, if you want to say they were almost zero zilch, nada, I will agree. I am not an attorney, so I don't know much about the strategies involved with cases like this, but I feel like it was just piling on to make the case seem more overwhelming than it already is. I find that curious in light of what I wrote earlier--there seems to be a lot of really damning stuff omitted.

 

[R80]

I think my comments related to altitude can be summed up in this phrase--the altitude of the dive had zero, zilch, nada to do with the outcome. Okay, if you want to say they were almost zero zilch, nada, I will agree. I am not an attorney, so I don't know much about the strategies involved with cases like this, but I feel like it was just piling on to make the case seem more overwhelming than it already is. I find that curious in light of what I wrote earlier--there seems to be a lot of really damning stuff omitted.

Altitude certainly takes a backseat to many other factors, and if the site happened to have been at sea level that would not have broken the incident chain. Another one that I don't think changes the outcome is the remoteness of the site from communication or medical aid.

I think it does contribute to the big picture being drawn that the defendants didn't just mess up some weighting, inflation, and supervision issue but more broadly totally failed to take even reasonable and expected measures. If I recall some of the other damning issues you were thinking of speak more to strategy, for instance highlighting standards violations that might stop them from keeping parties in the suit. For me the choice of dive site in terms of bottom profile is very problematic. This was nearly a vertical wall dive and being at a different site that had a shallower and more level appropriate bottom could have single-handedly changed the outcome of the dive. However, I doubt they want to highlight that aspect as it's probably less common than I'd like to think to take sub-10 dive divers to physiologically bottomless dive sites.

 

[R80]

@wetb4igetinthewater

I don't think selection up or down of a pound makes much difference, even if placement for trim does. However, discussing this as a static weighting difference ignores that this is a dynamic issue. More displaced water means lungs can compensate for less depth change without adjusting other spaces. Altitude also impacts this, raising the task loading and lowering how much depth change can be compensated for by breathing. Even a fraction of a pound buoyancy change, uncompensated for, will cause a runaway loss of buoyancy control.

This is supported by the gas laws and physics, and response #691 rejects physics in an utterly unscientific way.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

@wetb4igetinthewater

I don't think selection up or down of a pound makes much difference, even if placement for trim does. However, discussing this as a static weighting difference ignores that this is a dynamic issue. More displaced water means lungs can compensate for less depth change without adjusting other spaces. Altitude also impacts this, raising the task loading and lowering how much depth change can be compensated for by breathing. Even a fraction of a pound buoyancy change, uncompensated for, will cause a runaway loss of buoyancy control.

This is supported by the gas laws and physics, and response #691 rejects physics in an utterly unscientific way.

I have students in confined water hand each other 2 lb weights to compensate with their lungs while properly weighted.

While I don't have a peer reviewed scientific study to back this, 0.77 lbs is easily compensated for with the lungs. Again the issue here is extreme overweighting, improper weight placement, non ditachable weight, a wing without enough lift, no dry suit inflator hose, and no dry suit orientation.

Elevation (not altitude) is a non issue.

 

[R80]

I have students in confined water hand each other 2 lb weights to compensate with their lungs while properly weighted.

While I don't have a peer reviewed scientific study to back this, 0.77 lbs is easily compensated for with the lungs. Again the issue here is extreme overweighting, improper weight placement, non ditachable weight, a wing without enough lift, no dry suit inflator hose, and no dry suit orientation.

Elevation (not altitude) is a non issue.

I agree with almost everything said here. The challenge is it doesn't actually address what I've said.

 

[Wookie]

I was thinking that in Montana you can default someone if they don't respond in 20 days.

I'm going with what the plaintiffs lawyer told me personally when I asked him the question directly.

 

[Esprise Me]

I was thinking that in Montana you can default someone if they don't respond in 20 days.

Looks like 21 days from the date of service, not the date of filing. Maybe they're still working on tracking down all the defendants to serve them?
Montana Title 25. Civil Procedure MT R RCP Rule 12 | FindLaw