@JimBlay - saw this info today and that you were, like me, in the Indiana Scuba Divers FB group. That may be a good page to watch for future info, although I couldn't find any earlier discussion about the incident.
why is the instructor in question not listed as a defendant in the lawsuit?
That is interesting. I'm going into Perry Mason mode here, but the following could be the line of thinking of the opposing attorneys.
CLAIM by plaintiff
20. Defendant Bottoms Up is liable for the actions and negligence of the instructor, Clay St. John, under the doctrine of respondeat superior and pursuant to the agency relationship that existed as Mr. St. John was acting as their agent, servant or representative.
respondeat superior - The employer is charged with legal responsibility for the negligence of the employee because the employee is held to be an agent of the employer. If a negligent act is committed by an employee acting within the general scope of her or his employment, the employer will be held liable for damages.
* I'm guessing the key is that a negligent act has to be proved.
RESPONSE FROM Bottoms Up attorney
FOURTH DEFENSE: LACK OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR LIABILITY Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole, or in part, because BUSI cannot be held vicariously liable.
vicariously liable - Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. Ordinarily the independent negligence of one person is not imputable to another person.
* I may be interpreting incorrectly, but this seems to say that the instructor is the only one to be blamed and not BUSI.
Could speculate about why the plaintiff is going after the dive op and campground as opposed to the individual instructor, but will keep it to myself for now. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
