What makes a master diver?

[Tigerman]

If you are familiar with the DNR concept you should be familiar with the concept of consent..without that, when you "happen on the scene" offering unwanted care, you are opening up an arena of civil and criminal issues

Oh, so you try to deliberately lose someone following you FROM A DIVE BOAT, because you are liable to be sued?
I cant possibly imagine the opportunity to sue your *** for being reckless or negligent of the person following you end up dead... Or wait, I CAN!
Then again, if nobody else saw it, the following diver was just an idiot that deserved to die, right?

 

[adurso]

Oh, so you try to deliberately lose someone following you FROM A DIVE BOAT, because you are liable to be sued?
I cant possibly imagine the opportunity to sue your *** for being reckless or negligent of the person following you end up dead... Or wait, I CAN!
Then again, if nobody else saw it, the following diver was just an idiot that deserved to die, right?

Uh, you might want to check the context of the message you are replying to....But because you have my attention and are writing in the first person, let us play law: You cannot sue my *** because it is owned by other entities; as for naming me as a tortfeasor I cannot be negligent in ignoring another's behavior, nor is there a reckless tort involving ignoring someone following me under water. You may imagine all you like...

I would urge you, as you write in the first person, to research the law before you start throwing terms about that have no application under criminal or civil law....

 

[IXΘYΣ]

If you are familiar with the DNR concept you should be familiar with the concept of consent..without that, when you "happen on the scene" offering unwanted care, you are opening up an arena of civil and criminal issues

I'm also familiar with the concept of implied consent, and I've heard "just let me die" from more than one (knee walkin' commode huggin' drunk, in these cases) who really didn't want to. I hope I will never let the possibility of litigation get in the way of attempting to save a life. I certainly never intend to. If I err, it will be on the side of life-saving, absent knowledge of a valid DNR document. And no, "DNR" tatooed over your heart doesn't count - might be your girlfriend's initials

 

[fisheyeview]

Uh, you might want to check the context of the message you are replying to....But because you have my attention and are writing in the first person, let us play law: You cannot sue my *** because it is owned by other entities; as for naming me as a tortfeasor I cannot be negligent in ignoring another's behavior, nor is there a reckless tort involving ignoring someone following me under water. You may imagine all you like...

I would urge you, as you write in the first person, to research the law before you start throwing terms about that have no application under criminal or civil law....

Wow, is it family night at my dad's house already?

 

[Tigerman]

Uh, you might want to check the context of the message you are replying to....But because you have my attention and are writing in the first person, let us play law: You cannot sue my *** because it is owned by other entities; as for naming me as a tortfeasor I cannot be negligent in ignoring another's behavior, nor is there a reckless tort involving ignoring someone following me under water. You may imagine all you like...

I would urge you, as you write in the first person, to research the law before you start throwing terms about that have no application under criminal or civil law....

Negligence and recklessness dont have any application under criminal or civil law? Then where does negligent homicide and reckless endangerment come from?
Negligent homicide, no youre probably safe from that because it generally apply to a pattern of negligence towards people in your care (ie children or elderly).

Reckless endangerment I can see people wanting to have your *** for if you do deliberately try to lose a diver or chasing him/her off..
You DO as a certified and diver, and in the case mentioned specifically DM, know that diving CAN be dangerous, particularilly alone, and you just chased off or deliberately lost a diver to do just that and therefore you just commited an act that you should have known placed the other diver in danger of bodily harm or death.

And no, I have never spoken of "ignoring" the other diver, since the discussion has always revolved around trying to lose or chase off the other diver?

 

[josh]

......as for naming me as a tortfeasor I cannot be negligent in ignoring another's behavior, nor is there a reckless tort involving ignoring someone following me under water. You may imagine all you like...

Could you reprise that in terms of the situation being discussed, where the person ignoring the behaviour (of a solo diver, which, without appropriate training and experience *could* be considered reckless) was a card carrying professional level diver?
-j-

 

[josh]

How do you know she was a novice, lost or confused? How do you know what training and experience she has? You never talked to her.

Nooooooooo, Bob -I was not there remember? But as to the point, yes, note OP makes no note of trying to communicate with said diver, just trying to lose her. Personally, I would have made some attempt at communication after it was clear the diver was tagging along...
-j-

 

[josh]

About half way through our dive the couple ran low on air. He went to my wife to show his pressure gauge. My wife give him the finger.

Charming. You must be so proud.
-j-

 

[adurso]

Could you reprise that in terms of the situation being discussed, where the person ignoring the behaviour (of a solo diver, which, without appropriate training and experience *could* be considered reckless) was a card carrying professional level diver?
-j-

OK really quickly from a real world perspective (I am getting really busy at work now) In order to rise to the level of criminal prosecution, or civil action (leaving aside such television terms as negligent or reckless) there must be some relationship between the defendant and plaintiff, or injured parties, in the case of a death, the family for instance. A dive professional engages in a realtionship with those contracted with him or her. A contract may be written or verbal, or in rare cases, implied. A contract involves an exchange, generally cash for services. A professional who agrees to let a novice diver tag along and then takes said diver into an environment that the novice definitively shows discomfort in, rising to the level meeting the mythical "reasonable man" test, in which anyone, regardless of training would recognize as a problem, and then substantively disregards said level of discomfort, leading to serious bodily injury, or death, is then into the liability area. A dive professional who, by the standards of other dive professionals, engages in substantive behavior, with a contracted party, that leads to death or serious bodily injury is exposed to liability. Substantive behavior in this instance would mean not only waving off, or ignoring the following diver; but actively doing such things as pulling the reg from the followers mouth, cutting hose, in other words committing a battery. There must also be a contract, express or implied between the follower and the professional. The very fact that someone is a "dive professional" creates no relationship between the professional and any party wandering down the road, or under the water. No more so than the possession of a license to practice medicine creates a legal relationaship between a physician and the general public. Terms like standard of care, and duty to act have no application to those outside of the medical profession and those employed by a government entity.

I apologize for the length, and I have tried to simplify as much as possible given the constraints. An accurate summary of the issues involved is not possible within the constraints of an internet forum.

Criminal and civil law are exceeding complex, the media has caused terms to enter the common lexicon that are misunderstood and cause no end of difficulty by perpetuating urban legends.

Anyone who wishes to be, or is, a dive professional should avail themselves of some of the resources out there about civil issues in particular, so that they can sleep at night.

The myth about not showing your professional card on a dive boat because you might be held liable for something has been around since the '70s that I can reacall; there has never, to my knowledge(the caveat) been a prosecution, either criminal, or civil, in the US of a dive professional who was not in a contractual relationship with a plaintiff.

 

[adurso]

Negligence and recklessness dont have any application under criminal or civil law? Then where does negligent homicide and reckless endangerment come from?

snip

These terms are bandied about by the media and television programs; they are simplifications that have entered into the vulgate. Read the body of the codes...