 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / March 2004Legally speaking, you are not responsible for your dive partner
That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his dive partner reached for his air. Apparently he panicked and swam to the surface, abandoned his partner, who subsequently drowned. The family of the female sued the male partner but did not prevail in court. So we have a moral obligation to help a diver but not a legal one? Granted, bottom line is that you should be responsible for yourself, but this seems a little flagrant to me. Buck >That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive >partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Buck Do you have a link to the story? > >That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > >partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Do you have a link to the story? Sorry, no. It was just in Undercurrent, if you read that. Buck > That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Buck It doesn't to me. The female diver knew the risks when she entered the water (or should have before entering). The fact that she chose a poor partner is sad, but the accident is not (necessarily) his fault. Besides, it's not like he panicked and left her to die on purpose. > It doesn't to me. The female diver knew the risks when she entered the > water (or should have before entering). The fact that she chose a poor > partner is sad, but the accident is not (necessarily) his fault. Besides, > it's not like he panicked and left her to die on purpose. Based on the info provided so far, the male also chose a poor partner. > Based on the info provided so far, the male also chose a poor partner. 60' and apparantly so so on air and one goes up for bearing check, bad move, should have both gone up. And if the woman waited for her friend to return as she became dangerously low on air this would definitely be a foolish thing. I think too many divers relinquish their own judgement just because someone else is diving with them, when push comes to shove, look out for your own a.s, knowing this basic rule might have people begin to think more independantly. Of course no one ever knows for sure what the circumstances were, whether the survivor is hedging the truth to save his own a.s or even perhaps those who have suffered a loss trying to lay blame for perhaps the victims own mistake, one never knows. > That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is that you should be responsible for yourself, but this seems a little > flagrant to me. One opinion from one court. You could easily have practically the same circumstances next week in the same court and get a completely different ruling.  SignatureHydrogen & Stupidity...the two most common elements in the universe. > > That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > > partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You could easily have practically the same circumstances next week in > the same court and get a completely different ruling. One ruling can lead to precedence though, no? Buck >>>That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive >>>partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > One ruling can lead to precedence though, no? Operative term...."CAN". For it to set significant precedence, it would have to be upheld or remanded by a higher court. It may or may not set precendence in that judicial circuit. SignatureHydrogen & Stupidity...the two most common elements in the universe. >For it to set significant precedence, it would have to be upheld or >remanded by a higher court. It may or may not set precendence in that >judicial circuit. Are you a lawyer? If so please explain. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a ruling become precedent for all courts under the same next-higher court when the ruling is made and until/unless overruled. When it is affirmed by a higher court, it them becomes precedent for all courts under the next-court-up, again until/unless overrruled. Eventually it reaches the top level (state or federal). Also, I don't know what if any difference there is between what you call "significant precedence" and just "presedence". Is ther an actual lawyer brave enough to comment? Or do real lawyers keep the heck out of rec.scuba...? SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >>For it to set significant precedence, it would have to be upheld or >>remanded by a higher court. It may or may not set precendence in that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Is ther an actual lawyer brave enough to comment? > Or do real lawyers keep the heck out of rec.scuba...? Nope, I am not an attorney but do have a lot of contact with the legal system. I am located near Roanoke, VA. We could have a Circuit Court (some places this might be known as Superior Court) ruling that is completely contrary to a ruling in a court in Norfolk or Virginia Beach. I have seen this repeatedly. I remember a case some years back in the county that borders our southern line. The Circuit Court judge there consistantly ruled that if a police officer used a flashlight at night to illuminate the interior of a vehicle, while on a traffic stop, that constituted a "search" and the officer needed a search warrant. No other judges I am aware of had any similar rulings. But as I pointed out, unless that case of the diver is overturned and remanded, or upheld by a court of appeals or higher, then for practical purposes, the decision is relatively insignificant. As for "significant presedence" vs "presedence", to me, if the ruling affected the judicial system of a state or the country, that would be "significant" i.e.- A state Supreme Court or US Supreme Court ruled on it. A single uncontested decision in a Circuit or Superior Court of a locality is just not that significant with the exception that it MAY give an attorney a point to argue in THAT court. SignatureHydrogen & Stupidity...the two most common elements in the universe. > Is ther an actual lawyer brave enough to comment? > Or do real lawyers keep the heck out of rec.scuba...? Well, we do have Greg here... Uhhh... Nevermind... <grin> >That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive >partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >is that you should be responsible for yourself, but this seems a little >flagrant to me. Based on the facts as stated, the court's decision is consistent with my understanding of the law, and also with how I would like things to be. One should never have a legal obligation to risk ones own life in helping another. At least not unless some contactual obligation exists. Not withstanding the above, both of these divers seem to be lacking some basic skills. Had these skills been present, the moral obligation might have been fulfilled. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > >That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > >partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > some basic skills. Had these skills been present, the moral obligation > might have been fulfilled. I agree about basic skills -- I wish the article spelled that out more. Foremost you are responsible for yourself in the water but I believe that you have a moral obligation to help your buddy out short of killing yourself. I'm not so sure about legalities -- each case could produce unique possibilities. Maybe Chilly is on the right track! ;-) > > Based on the facts as stated, the court's decision is consistent with my > > understanding of the law, and also with how I would like things to be. > > > > One should never have a legal obligation to risk ones own life in > > helping another. By the way Charlie, he was hardly risking his own life. All the post tells us is that she "reached for his air" and he panicked and bolted. How was he risking and/or saving his own life? >>At least not unless some contactual obligation exists. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > yourself. I'm not so sure about legalities -- each case could produce > unique possibilities. Maybe Chilly is on the right track! ;-) But of course. >By the way Charlie, he was hardly risking his own life. All the post tells >us is that she "reached for his air" and he panicked and bolted. How was he >risking and/or saving his own life? It is always dangerous -- potentially very dangerous --to attempt to resuce an out-of-air or low-on-air diver. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > >By the way Charlie, he was hardly risking his own life. All the post tells > >us is that she "reached for his air" and he panicked and bolted. How was he > >risking and/or saving his own life? > > It is always dangerous -- potentially very dangerous --to attempt > to resuce an out-of-air or low-on-air diver. That's the point isn't it Charlie. The diver in question maintains that he did not attempt to rescue and out-of-air/low-on-air diver. He panicked and bolted when she "reached" for his air. He did her, I'm telling ya. Murder one. > That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is that you should be responsible for yourself, but this seems a little > flagrant to me. Isn't this an incident that happened some time ago? I'd swear we'd discussed it here before. Regardless, it would be interesting to see a link. I'm confused as to why any diver, regardless of experience level, would panic and bolt because his *buddy* reached for his air. The other thing that is odd about this, if it was just the two divers and one is dead, would the guilty one really have potentially incriminated himself by telling what a piece of crap he is? In any event, I'm not surprised at the verdict. The female buddy is also a diver that had the right to decide to let her buddy leave her in the first place. She should have checked her air, she should/could have gone up with him to check bearings. How could she possibly have run out of air while he was gone only long enough to check for bearings if she believed herself to have enough air in the first place? From 60' she could have done an ESA with or without him. (snip)> place. She should have checked her air, she should/could have gone up with > him to check bearings. How could she possibly have run out of air while he > was gone only long enough to check for bearings if she believed herself to > have enough air in the first place? From 60' she could have done an ESA > with or without him. The more I think about this . . .;^) I think the guy got away with murder. And I mean that literally. I think he told that goofy story about how he panicked and all, when what really happened was that he vented all her air and then left her on the bottom. Then he presented his cockamamie story and all that happened to him was he had to go to court to find out if he was criminally liable for being a bad buddy. >I think the guy got away with murder. And I mean that literally. As a matter of law, said "Judge Charlie", the information presented here offers no basis to find malicious intent. Therefore even if the dive partner was "responsible" (A question about whcih we clearly diagree), he could be charged only with manslaughter, at worst. None of which makes him in any way, shape or form, a "nice guy". SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. > >I think the guy got away with murder. And I mean that literally. > > As a matter of law, said "Judge Charlie", the information presented > here offers no basis to find malicious intent. Nope and Laci Peterson's husband was quite distraught about her disappearance . . .at least for a week. And apparently, OJ is still searching for his wife's murderer. >Therefore even if > the dive partner was "responsible" (A question about whcih we clearly > diagree) Why do you "clearly disagree"? You just finished pointing out that there was not enough info provided and that goes either way. > he could be charged only with manslaughter, at worst. Not under my scenario. Murder in the first. He thought about it for weeks, maybe even months. > None of which makes him in any way, shape or form, a "nice guy". :^) > > >I think the guy got away with murder. And I mean that literally. > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > :^) Hey, maybe you should start writing underwater mysteries, to hell with Cussler. You already have the workings for the first book. > > Not under my scenario. Murder in the first. He thought about it for > weeks, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hey, maybe you should start writing underwater mysteries, to hell with > Cussler. You already have the workings for the first book. LOL, I thought it was the plot of a Cussler book. ;^) "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I think the guy got away with murder. And I mean that literally. I disagree. There was no crime of any sort. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > > That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > > partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > have enough air in the first place? From 60' she could have done an ESA > with or without him. I pretty much agree with everything you say, but I'd like to know the experience of the two divers. If the guy had a few hundred dives and the gal had ten, well that might sway a court/jury. >Subject: Legally speaking, you are not responsible for your dive partner >From: "Randy Buckner" Randybuckner@att.net I never really thought of it as a legal question. Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. "Popeye NCAT3" wrote... > I never really thought of it as a legal question. Agreed... It's a question of who has the keys to the car... <evil-grin> > That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Buck Come up from 60 ft to check bearing? What kind of idiot diver is that? Even I would not do that. >> That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive >> partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Come up from 60 ft to check bearing? What kind of idiot diver is that? Even I would not do >that. Have you ever dove in water with 5 ft visibility (or less)? > >> That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > >> partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Have you ever dove in water with 5 ft visibility (or less)? That would be even more reason not to separate. You would never find the buddy again. Besides it risks DCI. I would not do that. Adam >On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:55:03 GMT, "Adam Helberg" .. >>Come up from 60 ft to check bearing? What kind of idiot diver is that? >>Even I would not do that. > >Have you ever dove in water with 5 ft visibility (or less)? Dive buddies' separating in lo vis is a bad idea. I think the point is that a better way to do this would be for BOTH divers to come to a 10-20ft depth. Then one or both of them could surface, take bearings, and return to 10-20 feet to follow the bearing. My wife and I have done this many times. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >>On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:55:03 GMT, "Adam Helberg" >.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >surface, take bearings, and return to 10-20 feet to follow the >bearing. My wife and I have done this many times. I wasn't thinking in terms of leaving your buddy to come to the surface, just coming to the surface to get ones bearings. I agree that leaving a buddy below in poor visibility is a very bad idea. Alan "Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Come up from 60 ft to check bearing? What kind of idiot diver is that? Even I would not do :that. A lost diver. I've done it before and will do it again if necessary. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > "Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dan Bracuk It's asking for trouble. It leaves your buddy separated. Now buddy system has become solo diving without solo preparation. Secondly poping up quickly from 60 feet to get bearings risks DCI. I prefer Charle Hammond's method of both making a slow ascent to 20-15 feet and one person gets bearings and returns down, then both resume the dive. If the visibility is bad even that may not be safe and it's probably best to make do with navigation you have, and just come up prepared to be away from boat. "Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :It's asking for trouble. It leaves your buddy separated. Now buddy system has become solo :diving without solo preparation. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :If the visibility is bad even that may not be safe and it's probably best to make do with :navigation you have, and just come up prepared to be away from boat. Nobody said anything about coming up quickly or diving in bad vis. For me, the biggest risk is not being able to equalize on the way back down. That happens from time to time. If it does, I go down as deep as I can and swim to the boat at that depth. Usually the wife will come up as well. Another thing to watch out for is drifting apart in the current. You have to pay attention when doing this sort of thing. But you are all welcome to your own methods. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > "Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Another thing to watch out for is drifting apart in the current. You > have to pay attention when doing this sort of thing. > But you are all welcome to your own methods. I've done this many times. Either sat on the bottom while my bud went up and looked around, or went up and then came back down. I agree with you Dan that it's not a big deal. >>That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive >>partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Come up from 60 ft to check bearing? What kind of idiot diver is that? Even I would not do > that. Yes, but we have divers here who continue dives after dive parnter finds out/signals low on air > >>That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive > >>partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yes, but we have divers here who continue dives after dive parnter finds > out/signals low on air Some people ring the bell, others drive on. :-) >That's what the CA court says. Of course it does. The ramifications and consequences of any other conclusion are too ridiculous to even consider. There is nothing special about water or being in it. Note to self: If "buckner" ever shows up single on a boat, DO NOT accept as a tag-along. He believes that his partner is legally responsible for him and his safety while diving and has stated this in public. safe diving, bullshark > >That's what the CA court says. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > partner is legally responsible for him and his safety > while diving and has stated this in public. Work on your troll a bit, needs a little fine tuning. > There is nothing special about water or being in it. Not in SE FL, that's for sure. http://advaloreminternational.com/videos/jaws.mov Surfers, who later take up diving (like me) find the emphasis on requiring (needing) a "buddy" when diving to be equal parts amusing and perplexing. I can just picture the scene if some burnout, dumbass, SE FL, cattle boat driver tried to require Garret or Laird (the guys in the video clip) to "buddy" up with someone for their "safety". Too funny. -- SJM "Randy Buckner" <Randybuckner@att.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: : So we have a :moral obligation to help a diver but not a legal one? We don't have any type of obligation. It is a matter of choice. Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ >> So we have a >> moral obligation to help a diver but not a legal one? > > We don't have any type of obligation. It is a matter of choice. Every once in a while, we agree. This is one of those times. Lee I hope you dive with all the arseholes here................ >That's what the CA court says. Apparently a guy left his female dive >partner at 60 feet to go up and check bearings. When he came back down, his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Buck |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.