|Re: A question of legal liability... Some help here please.|
Posted by ChrisM on July 01, 2012 at 19:45:03:|
In Reply to: A question of legal liability... Some help here please. posted by seahunt on July 01, 2012 at 18:19:58:
Plaintiff will no doubt be able to find an expert to say that an octo is "standard," but that's irrelevant, since the legal issue is what is the scope of the op's duty. How far does it go?
It was argued in a recent case that an op is merely transport to a dive site. Didn't work out so well, but that dealt with a diver left behind. Whole other kettle of fish.
I do NOT think, however, that an op has any duty whatsoever to monitor what equipment a diver uses. It's not practical, and opens up so much more potential liability. I would be very surprised if a court held that a duty went that far.
Where would it end? Sure, you have the octo... slippery slope. Does it work? When was the last time you had it serviced? etc etc. The op potentially becomes liable for things way beyond its control.
Lots of divers solo dive. I haven't taken the cert course, but I bet it says somewhere that a redundant air source is standard. I don't think an op would be liable for a solo diver injury based on a lack of redundancy
Legal duty depends on a lot of factors
|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
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.