Incident Involving Drop Bottle and Deep Diving

In the case mentioned by the OP, the charter boat, skipper or divemaster could be considered to have not exercised a reasonable care in dropping unmarked and unanalyzed bottles to the divers. Sure those divers should have been responsible for their analysis and marking. But that doesn't make the complicity of the boat/skipper/divemaster in using them more reasonable. In other words, its pretty hard to defend yourself from an angry widow when your practices are that far outside the boundaries of what prudent normal divers/skippers/DMs do.

Hi Richard
Just to clarify, we are not talking about criminal law here this is about a civil case where the burden of proof would be to prove "that on the balance of probabilities " i.e. just prove 51% of the argument and you have won the case. Regarding what goes on in my own jurisdiction i.e. Ireland most skippers will have you sign a legal waiver form before you set foot on their boat, whose goal is to precisely remove this threat of a civil claim against the skipper. Likewise with any course you undergo the Instructor usually produces a catch all legal waiver document on behalf of them and their training agency for the exact same reason.
In the context of the above mentioned case where an incorrectly labelled cylinder is given to a diver by a skipper, I'm not sure how the fault can in anyway be attributed to the skipper as he would say he is merely the 'busdriver' i.e. he would not have had any dealings with the analysis and labeling of the cylinder. Usually its the diver themselves who would have done this. But in any event if there was a case where another diver analysed and incorrectly labelled a cylinder and then gave it to a diver to breath where there was a resulting harmful event to the diver the only criminal offence in Ireland that comes to mind is Section 13 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Persons Act 1997:

"Endangerment.

13.***8212;(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence who intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable***8212;

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both
."

All the best
 
In sue happy USA/California it doesn't matter that you signed a waiver. Insurance companies typically settle claims and it rarely gets to the point of actually deciding who had more culpability. The cost of insurance then rise for everyone and we end up with fewer and fewer operators because the insurance costs are prohibitive. The reasons for settling are many but typically because the costs to defend are so high and "if the skipper should have known better" but allowed the divers to splash anyway there is an implied duty to not allow unsafe behavior. Whether that duty has been demonstrated to exist or not despite the waivers is irrelevant as most cases (here in the States) settle with gag clauses.

At least in a few cases which have gone to trial, divers have signed waivers the next of kin have disputed, or operators have allowed divers on dives over their head and been successfully sued. Over here you can't waiver away your rights from gross negligence. Is dropping unanalyzed unmarked safeties on behalf of divers gross negligence on the skippers part? In this country according to industry standards and practices yes a jury could probably be persuaded that meets the standard for gross negligence.
 
Over here you can't waiver away your rights from gross negligence.
As far as I know I believe its the same over here as well. Although from my own experience there maybe more of what we would call 'common sense' applied when assessing liability if any.
 
As far as I know I believe its the same over here as well. Although from my own experience there maybe more of what we would call 'common sense' applied when assessing liability if any.

We don't have any common sense on juries lol
 
Back
Top