diver.net

The real issue


Outer Bamnks diving on the Great Escape Southern California Live-Aboard Dive Boat


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Chuck Tribolet on March 31, 2008 at 16:19:46:

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



Follow Ups:


Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Message:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Post Background Color: White     Black
Post Area Page Width: Normal   Full
You must type in the
scrambled text key to
the right.
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.
capcha
Text Key:

      


diver.net