So you thought the waiver would stand up in court.......
Survivors can sue despite a waiver
Court permits action in scuba diving death
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
BY KATHY BARRETT CARTER
Star-Ledger Staff
For years, companies that sponsor higher risk activities such as scuba diving
and skydiving have asked participants to sign waivers designed to absolve them
from lawsuits if injury or death results.
Yesterday, a state appeals court declared those release forms do not bar
relatives from filing a wrongful death lawsuit.
A three-judge panel made its decision in the case of the late Assistant Essex
County Prosecutor Eugene J. Pietroluongo, 44, of Orange, who died in a scuba
diving accident in Pennsylvania three years ago. It cleared the way for
Pietroluongo's 13-year-old daughter, his sole heir, to sue the Regency Diving
Center in Millburn.
The court said while Pietroluongo had the power to sign away his right to sue,
the law did not allow him to sign away the rights of his survivors to bring a
wrongful death lawsuit. It said such an agreement, "like any contract, can only
bind the individuals who signed it."
Attorneys said yesterday that the decision yesterday sets new rules and could
result in more lawsuits.
"This is the first reported case in New Jersey dealing with this particular
issue," said Michael J. Barrett, the Woodbridge lawyer representing
Pietroluongo's daughter. "Now that it is clear what the rules are, those
engaged in recreational activities know what they are dealing with."
Larry Zucker, who serves as counsel to the New Jersey Amusement Association,
said many companies require patrons to sign release forms. Zucker said he did
not think the fallout from the court decision would be far-reaching because
very few accidents are fatal.
"Thank God, death actions are very rare," said Zucker. "This is not your
typical situation. I don't think it'll have a big impact or create any
additional exposure or liability in the amusement industry."
Costas Prodromou, the owner of the Regency Diving Center, declined to comment
on the ruling. His attorney, Judith A. Wahrenberger, did not return calls
yesterday.
Pietroluongo went to the Regency Diving Center for advanced diving training. He
signed a waiver agreeing that the diving school would not be liable for "any
injury, death, or other damages to me or my family, heirs, or assigns that may
occur as a result of my participation in this diving class or as a result of
negligence of any party."
Pietroluongo died on July 17, 2001, while scuba diving along with Prodromou,
another instructor and a student. The dive took place at Dutch Springs Quarry,
an old cement quarry that was turned into a diving park in Bethlehem, Pa.
An experienced diver, Pietroluongo had been scuba diving since 1984. The other
student, who was less experienced, had some problems during the dive. When the
two instructors brought that diver to the surface, they lost sight of
Pietroluongo and were unable to find him. The next evening Pietroluongo's body
was found in 66 feet of water with an ample supply of air in his tank and
equipment in working order. The medical examiner ruled his death an accidental
drowning.
Bonnie Gershon, Pietroluongo's ex-wife, brought a lawsuit on behalf of the
couple's daughter.
"He was not married, but he had one child, and what the court held is that Mr.
Pietroluongo could not sign away her rights," said Barrett. "That would be
unfair and contrary to the wrongful death statute."
Barrett said the ruling would take effect after a person dies and family
members claim economic loss. Affirming the lower court, the appeals panel said
Pietroluongo's agreement with Regency is "unenforceable."
Noting that wrongful death lawsuits are often brought when "breadwinners" die,
the court said: "Our Legislature declared that a just society has both a moral
and economic responsibility to ensure that those who are found civilly liable
for the death of a person are required to compensate the heirs of that person."
The decision was written by Appellate Division Judge Jose L. Fuentes and joined
by Judges Dorothea Wefing and Donald G. Collester Jr.
e-shark - 14 Apr 2004 17:47 GMT
> So you thought the waiver would stand up in court.......
<snip newspaper article>
1. It's been said many times before, but it's worth saying again. Don't
make the assumption that dive waivers are always unenforceable everywhere.
Each of the 50 states (and each country outside the US) gets to make its own
decision on whether to enforce dive waivers. Some states and countries will
agree with New Jersey. Others will not. This New Jersey court opinion
means zip in California.
2. Some states distinguish between (a) a release of liability and (b) an
assumption of risk agreement.
(a) The release of liability means the diver is giving up his own right
to sue. The New Jersey court opinion says that a mere release of liability
cannot apply to the claims of others, such as children.
(b) The assumption of risk agreement is different. It does not directly
destroy the wrongful death claims of others, but it does affect how the duty
of care is applied. The practical effect of well-written assumption of risk
agreement in circumstances where there is no gross negligence is that the
heirs can sue for wrongful death, but they will lose.
Most dive waivers drafted by attorneys, insurers, or dive certification
agencies include both the release of liability and the assumption of risk
agreement.
Alan Street - 14 Apr 2004 18:12 GMT
>> So you thought the waiver would stand up in court.......
><snip newspaper article>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>agencies include both the release of liability and the assumption of risk
>agreement.
In addition, there's a world of difference between allowing a suit to
go forward and saying a waiver is useless. Waivers don't just prevent
lawsuits, they can also help you win them.
Wait and see what the outcome of the suit is.
chilly - 14 Apr 2004 18:23 GMT
> In addition, there's a world of difference between allowing a suit to
> go forward and saying a waiver is useless. Waivers don't just prevent
> lawsuits, they can also help you win them.
>
> Wait and see what the outcome of the suit is.
Looks like there may need to be a bunch of education provided to the court
during that case too. For example, an individual divers personal
responsibility. The diver had an equal option to surface with the two
instructors and his dive buddy. He chose not to do so, apparently. And if
he's been diving since 1984, I can understand why. Seems pretty weird that
he'd have all his gear in order, lots of air, no unusual diving conditions
and end up drowning. Pure speculation of course, but it seems more like
some kind of medical condition.
chilly - 14 Apr 2004 18:55 GMT
> > In addition, there's a world of difference between allowing a suit to
> > go forward and saying a waiver is useless. Waivers don't just prevent
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> and end up drowning. Pure speculation of course, but it seems more like
> some kind of medical condition.
It should be noted that my opinion on the diver staying down, is directly in
proportion to my own experience. As one example, a number of years ago, I
took a refresher advanced course. I was taking that course again, even
though already certified to that level just refresh myself and satisfy
myself that I deserved the confidence that I had at that time. As an aside,
it was an absolutely awesome weekend weather-wise and I was camping with
dive friends in B.C. at the time, so as good an excuse as any. :^)
During the day, there were periods of time that the instructor had to take
other students to the surface. I always waited at depth for the
instructor's return. I also knew that at any moment I felt like it, I could
ascend on my own, either normally or ooa (not that that was a likely event)
Seeing this kind of case arise, makes me reflect on that weekend and wonder
about my poor instructor had something unlikely occurred. It just doesn't
seem appropriate to me that it should have been the instructor or the agency
who took the hit, had it gone bad for me.
Randy Cain - 15 Apr 2004 20:22 GMT
> > > In addition, there's a world of difference between allowing a suit to
> > > go forward and saying a waiver is useless. Waivers don't just prevent
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> seem appropriate to me that it should have been the instructor or the agency
> who took the hit, had it gone bad for me.
PADI now requires that no student be left unattended, either on the
surface or at depth. This kind of thing has happened before, so it
kinda surprises me that there isn't something in TDI's standards about
leaving students by themselves...
e-shark - 15 Apr 2004 06:20 GMT
> So you thought the waiver would stand up in court.......
>
> Survivors can sue despite a waiver
> Court permits action in scuba diving death
<snip article>
Here's a link to the text of the court's opinion:
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6391-02.opn.html
H. Huntzinger - 19 Apr 2004 12:21 GMT
> The court said while Pietroluongo had the power to sign away his right to
> sue, the law did not allow him to sign away the rights of his survivors
> to bring a wrongful death lawsuit. It said such an agreement, "like any
> contract, can only bind the individuals who signed it."
FWIW, if you're doing a telephone/fax correspondence to sign up for a
trip, you may find that the waiver form has a signature block for a
witness. Its easy to have your spouse sign to be said witness, but if
there is ever a problem, that fact will probably be used in court as
evidence that the spouse agreed to the waiver's terms, even though they
were technically only signing as a witness.
Because it might make a (small) difference, it might be a good idea to
have someone other than a familymember sign as witness on a waiver form,
such as a coworker.
-hh