Posted by MHK on February 27, 2001 at 11:05:07:
In Reply to: Re: Nitrox and the *legal liability issue* posted by shark-92107 on February 27, 2001 at 10:49:12:
I don't believe so but Ken is free to elaborate.. Simply because there isn't judicial precedent doesn't mean the issue has any legs..
For example, as Pat pointed out, if a DM doesn't have Wreck diving specialty, would that preclude them from supervising a dive on the Olympic, Valiant, Yukon etc????? If they don't have a night diving specialty, are they precluded from working a night dive????
Every agency allows a non-Nitrox DM to supervise nitrox certified diver's, all the lawyers involved don't see this as an issue, none of the insurance companies are requiring this, so at what point to you sign off on the fact that it isn't anything to worry about?????
And where do you draw the line???
Furthermore, what puzzles me about Ken's position is that he drafted up his own waiver's, even after the very lawyers that he cited told him that they aren't sure they would hold up in court; he allows solo diving ( which requires a seperate waiver) and doesn't require a solo diving waiver, so I'm simply wondering why hs is so wooried about a legal position that none of the acknowledged experts in the industry are worried about, but yet ignores the very same legal opinions with respect to waivers and solo diving????
Later