Northwest Dive Club

Well, there you have it..

A wrongful death law suit has been filed in our own back yard against the Dive Shop, the Instructor and the Agency for the death of a student diver in an "Advanced Open Water" course.

it is claimed that training and materials used in the open-water course "were manifestly deficient in their creation, promulgation and application."

the plaintiff also claims that the diver in question "wasn't properly instructed in use of the equipment, wasn't adequately prepared for the dives and wasn't appropriately screened."

it also also claims that the dive site "is a patently inappropriate site for novice student divers" due to strong current freezing temperatures..

the ultimate claim is that the instructor pulled the diver's buddy from the water and left the diver without going after her "after being abandoned underwater"


Read more here:

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/05/1 ... scuba.html

[PS - This is for informational purposes and lets not make this a $99 class discussion please and keep it clean]

I'm not sure that there's a whole lot to discuss here unless someone has direct and reliable information on what really happened that day. It'll be up to the courts to figure this out. I'll be watching for the verdict with interest though.

Mattleycrue76 wrote:I'm not sure that there's a whole lot to discuss here unless someone has direct and reliable information on what really happened that day. It'll be up to the courts to figure this out. I'll be watching for the verdict with interest though.

Direct and reliable information?? When has that ever stopped us?

Mattleycrue76 wrote:I'm not sure that there's a whole lot to discuss here unless someone has direct and reliable information on what really happened that day. It'll be up to the courts to figure this out. I'll be watching for the verdict with interest though.

Yeah, I'll be keeping an eye on this one too..

I have a feeling the shop and agency might not be at too much risk here, since its ultimately the instructor who delivers the training, picks the dive sites, takes the divers out and makes the judgment call on dive conditions and general safety..

Would the suit be public information, i.e. is the actual documentation available for public record?

.

kdupreez wrote:

Mattleycrue76 wrote:I'm not sure that there's a whole lot to discuss here unless someone has direct and reliable information on what really happened that day. It'll be up to the courts to figure this out. I'll be watching for the verdict with interest though.

Yeah, I'll be keeping an eye on this one too..

I have a feeling the shop and agency might not be at too much risk here, since its ultimately the instructor who delivers the training, picks the dive sites, takes the divers out and makes the judgment call on dive conditions and general safety..

Would the suit be public information, i.e. is the actual documentation available for public record?

.

I'm betting it will be settled out of court with a gag order, and if so, then no. Just a guess . . .

kdupreez wrote:

Mattleycrue76 wrote:I'm not sure that there's a whole lot to discuss here unless someone has direct and reliable information on what really happened that day. It'll be up to the courts to figure this out. I'll be watching for the verdict with interest though.

Yeah, I'll be keeping an eye on this one too..

I have a feeling the shop and agency might not be at too much risk here, since its ultimately the instructor who delivers the training, picks the dive sites, takes the divers out and makes the judgment call on dive conditions and general safety..

Would the suit be public information, i.e. is the actual documentation available for public record?

.

No way the instructor gets pinned with things without the shop getting hit too. Agency a little less clear.

Pleadings and briefing are all available from the court, discovery materials (information shared between parties) are generally only available to the public where attached to a pleading or a brief.

I remember this death, but the exact area of their dive is a bit muddied in my mind. Does anyone recall? Was it by shore or charter?
Otherwise I have no idea of the merits of the claims.

The only person who will win here.. The laywers...this was that dive off of sars head.. And they were in current

Sometimes terrible things just happen. I imagine that the diver (RIP) had to sign and initial in a zillion places like we all do every time we go out with a charter or instructor. Does signing all of that legalese even mean anything to the courts?

This is a tragedy for sure, but I'm not sure that lawsuits are the answer. Diving is a dangerous activity and the ocean is not a controllable environment like keeping the mall free of slippery surfaces is.

I find it ironic that the agency is NAUI. If their standards aren't high enough, I'm not sure what the answer is.

Hmmmm, I would very much like to know how long she had been diving and how many dives she had prior to AOW. No agency bashing needed we all know that the rules are pretty tight and these things shouldn't happen but training does imply that you are doing something new so accidents can and do happen.

It is my feeling that too many new divers rush into advanced classes with to little training and experience I would like to see some sort of minimum time/dives set that protects those too eager to get that next level cert. Some people are very quick learners and can do this but many others could benefit from a slower more conservative approach. It might hold some people back but I am sure it would save lives and create better divers in the long run. After all what does that cert get you that you can't live without????

Just my 2psi

Tangfish wrote:Sometimes terrible things just happen. I imagine that the diver (RIP) had to sign and initial in a zillion places like we all do every time we go out with a charter or instructor. Does signing all of that legalese even mean anything to the courts?

This is a tragedy for sure, but I'm not sure that lawsuits are the answer. Diving is a dangerous activity and the ocean is not a controllable environment like keeping the mall free of slippery surfaces is.

So as an instructor that makes very liberal use of liability releases, I can tell you than even the most conservative liability release typically don't stand up in court if the instructor was being grossly negligent..

For example in a case where an instructor makes a piss poor judgement call when knowing better, those liability releases mean absolutely squat.. He/She would be roasted in court for negligence.

In this case, I obviously have no idea on what the conditions were or what the diver's training or capabilities were, hence the query if there are any public record of the original claim, etc.

BUT - if you have done everything according to standards, applied good judgement and a diver either by own error or some other adverse actions, get injured.. The instructor is not liable.


.

this was 2008 incident involving the girl from walla walla Shari Booth that was part of a marine biology university program, the class was up near Rosario Beach, the buddy described communicating with her at the 20' stop, telling her she was ascending cause she was cold. She says she climbed out of the water onto the boat, assuming Shari was right behind her and would be up shortly...

H20doctor wrote:The only person who will win here.. The laywers...

Undoubtedly. When something this tragic happens, it's natural for those left behind to want somebody to blame. Sadly, too often some lawyer with minimal-to-nonexistent ethics is all too eager to capitalize on other people's suffering. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, since I don't know anybody involved, but even if that's not the situation, the lawyers will be the only ones who come out ahead. And the family will likely find out that, even if they "win," it'll feel hollow because their loved one is still gone. Heartbreaking.

Joshua Smith wrote:I find it ironic that the agency is NAUI. If their standards aren't high enough, I'm not sure what the answer is.

It's not that the standards aren't high enough ... it's that they leave an awful lot of room for an instructor to decide how to teach the material. I'm proud of my association with NAUI ... but I do honestly consider their Advanced Scuba Diver manual insufficient if the goal is to produce a diver that is capable of doing dives independent of supervision in typical Puget Sound conditions. It is for that reason that I created material to augment that class. It is also the reason why NAUI not only allows ... but encourages instructors to add material as they see fit to address local conditions. But not all instructors see it that way.

Without knowing how the class was taught, what was covered, what was emphasized, how well the equipment was maintained, and what pressures were brought to bear to reassure students that the dives would be OK, it is impossible to judge the merits of the suit.

FWIW - I did part of my (YMCA) AOW class doing a deep and drift dive in the San Juan Islands. Don't really remember which specific sites ... but there was current, and it was definitely cold (it was April). The cold part of the lawsuit is a bit strange ... Puget Sound is always cold. What were they expecting?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Blaming lawyers is like blaming ice cream for making you fat. Nobody is forced to eat ice cream or hire a lawyer. And if you ever get sued I'm sure you'll run straight to a lawyer and get chummy in a hurry.

It's too bad about all this (the accident). Gene is my friend. He owns the only dive shop within 100 miles, and he's been teaching for around 30 years. He's an honest and kind man who has probably taught thousands of students. I don't know who did what and who has fault, but I know there has already been a great deal of suffering. It is sad to see there will be even more.

CaptnJack wrote:I remember this death, but the exact area of their dive is a bit muddied in my mind. Does anyone recall? Was it by shore or charter?
Otherwise I have no idea of the merits of the claims.

It was charter, and it was off Northwest Island, just off Rosario Beach IIRC.

- Janna

nwscubamom wrote:

CaptnJack wrote:I remember this death, but the exact area of their dive is a bit muddied in my mind. Does anyone recall? Was it by shore or charter?
Otherwise I have no idea of the merits of the claims.

It was charter, and it was off Northwest Island, just off Rosario Beach IIRC.

- Janna

I guess I find it interesting the the boat isn't named in the suit then. Maybe the skipper had recommended an alternative site or something and the family feels he/she was not a negligent party. I don't know.

I don't view lawyers as "winners" here with everyone else a "loser". Its possible honest mistakes were made or neligence exists. I don't know, I wasn't there. Its the court systems job to figure those things out. I do hope it goes to trial so the findings can be a part of public record and we might possible see some useful analysis of who did what.

CaptnJack wrote:

nwscubamom wrote:

CaptnJack wrote:I remember this death, but the exact area of their dive is a bit muddied in my mind. Does anyone recall? Was it by shore or charter?
Otherwise I have no idea of the merits of the claims.

It was charter, and it was off Northwest Island, just off Rosario Beach IIRC.

- Janna

I guess I find it interesting the the boat isn't named in the suit then. Maybe the skipper had recommended an alternative site or something and the family feels he/she was not a negligent party. I don't know.

I don't view lawyers as "winners" here with everyone else a "loser". Its possible honest mistakes were made or neligence exists. I don't know, I wasn't there. Its the court systems job to figure those things out. I do hope it goes to trial so the findings can be a part of public record and we might possible see some useful analysis of who did what.

The boat could be named, haven't seen the pleadings. The plaintiffs' attorney is in Seattle, maritime injury/wrongful death guy. I don't know him, but his credentials and pedigree look pretty solid.

Yes, as much as we should stay away from "the $99 class is to blame," we should also stay away from "the bastard lawyers" stuff too. I imagine DSteding will prove to be an excellent source for information for us on this, as will the several other lawyers who frequent this board... you know, all those greedy, opportunistic monsters with no ethics or principles.

Sounder wrote:Yes, as much as we should stay away from "the $99 class is to blame," we should also stay away from "the bastard lawyers" stuff too. I imagine DSteding will prove to be an excellent source for information for us on this, as will the several other lawyers who frequent this board... you know, all those greedy, opportunistic monsters with no ethics or principles.

I agree. I imagine that folks like Doug, Peter and Erica get a little tired of hearing it after a while.

Maybe we need a "puppies and ice cream" substitute for lawyers now, too ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Yes indeed the "blood sucking lawyers" thing does get old very quickly.

Are liability releases valid in Washington? Yes, which is probably why the allegation is for "gross negligence" instead of "negligence."

I agree it is tragically ironic that this case revolves around:

a. University sponsored class (typically much longer and more intense than a "shop" class);

b. An Advanced Open Water class (not the clear your mask on your knees -- air share once -- good to go OW Class); and

c. NAUI (which does NOT have the Profit Motive).

At some point we all must admit Diving Is A Dangerous Activity and people will die doing it.

It will be interesting to see where this all leads.

You said.. Dir

Grateful Diver wrote:I do honestly consider their Advanced Scuba Diver manual insufficient if the goal is to produce a diver that is capable of doing dives independent of supervision in typical Puget Sound conditions. It is for that reason that I created material to augment that class.

And this is why I send AOW students your way, Bob.

Sounder wrote: we should also stay away from "the bastard lawyers" stuff too.

I didn't hear anybody say this or even imply it. I think what was meant by "the lawyers are the only ones who will win" is that, in the end, they're the only ones who actually get what they want, i.e. paid. In most such cases that I've seen, nobody really gets any closure or satisfaction out of the process, judgment or settlement. Unfortunately, our system doesn't have a better way to resolve things like this. It would be nice if we did, but I have no idea what it would look like.