In Reply to: Drifting Dan's lawsuit can proceed posted by on March 30, 2008 at 13:58:44:

This "assumed risk" defense is lawyer bullshit. I assume the
risk of getting bent. I assume the risk of an embolism. I assume
the risk of getting bit by a shark. I DO NOT assume the risk
of getting left behind.

The real issue is going to come down to "who was responsible to
make sure that the diver got back on the boat at the first dive
site". Was it:

A. The boat (captain, owner, crew)
B. The folks that chartered the boat and supplied the dive master.
C. The pickup buddy

My opinion is some combination of B and C, mostly B, but I'd really
like to see the contract between A and B. If that contract is
well-written, A is just the taxi driver. If it's poorly-written,
A may be just as liable as B.

And if A observes B making sure everybody is back on the boat
by counting noses instead of doing a roll call, A is grossly
neglegent and responsible.

COUNTING NOSES DOESN'T CUT IT. I've been on a boat where they
counted noses, and found everybody. They started to pull the
hook while they did the roll call. THERE WAS A BUDDY TEAM STILL
UNDERWATER. No harm, no foul, and the buddy team didn't have to
swim all the way back to the boat. But a nose count is ONLY
sufficient to decide whether it's worth doing a roll call. A
nose count is NOT sufficient to decide whether everybody is back
on the boat.

Chuck

• Re: The real issue DPV Diver 14:54:07 04/15/08 (0)
• ??? Elaine 13:12:04 04/01/08 (1)
  • Link Elaine 21:30:31 04/01/08 (0)