Worrying Legal Case

[gordyp]

'My husband died, and I still have many unanswered questions' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-45878474

A sad case but one that could have big ramifications.

Personally I think it’s up to the individual to decide to dive. The skipper is there to get you to and from the dive site safely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jamesp]

'My husband died, and I still have many unanswered questions' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-45878474

A sad case but one that could have big ramifications.

Personally I think it’s up to the individual to decide to dive. The skipper is there to get you to and from the dive site safely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allready in the news thread.

If the skipper gets promoted to dive supervisor from taxi driver, likely to be an opening for Uber.

Shit fest all around.

My wife being pregnant with the daughter pretty much ended my deeper diving; the daughter arriving thinned it out further.

[Chrisch]

I am sure there will be agreement on here that the skipper is not a dive supervisor nor should they be. What a sad event.

[steelemonkey]

As is often the case, this is termed to be a "diving accident" but on examination there are other factors involved.
Someone dying of a heart attack, or other medical condition, whilst playing football or jogging would be reported differently.
Of course, the man's injury from falling may not have caused his death if he did not then go diving.

It is all very complicated and extremely sad for the family but, by it's very complication, should not cause a knee jerk reaction in calling for legislation change and changing the responsibilities of skippers.

[cazyoung]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-45888336

Update!

[MikeF]

Diver dies doing something of his own free will having, you hope, assessed the risk and accepted it and then grieving widow is looking for someone to blame for husbands death and trying to sue to provide for her and her child. All very tragic and very familiar from several other cases.

Diving at that level you expect people to be grown ups capable of assessing their own capabilities, seastate and vessel motion. I've been onboard when some have dived and others including myself have called it as too rough. Normally too rough to kit up safely or too rough to get back onboard safely. That's the divers call.

There are several bits of that article that are just nonsense. Quoting HSE ACOP for recreational diving projects being one that really stands out. They weren't being paid to dive and were I would hazard a guess probably outside the 12 mile limit.

What's particularly worrying about this case is the implication for the skipper being responsible for things that happen to divers once they have left the vessel and are under the water as well as onboard.

The only outcome from that will be more days of no diving as the skipper will be scared to leave themself exposed and a further nail in the coffin of UK diving.

[steelemonkey]

Diver dies doing something of his own free will having, you hope, assessed the risk and accepted it and then grieving widow is looking for someone to blame for husbands death and trying to sue to provide for her and her child. All very tragic and very familiar from several other cases.

Diving at that level you expect people to be grown ups capable of assessing their own capabilities, seastate and vessel motion. I've been onboard when some have dived and others including myself have called it as too rough. Normally too rough to kit up safely or too rough to get back onboard safely. That's the divers call.

There are several bits of that article that are just nonsense. Quoting HSE ACOP for recreational diving projects being one that really stands out. They weren't being paid to dive and were I would hazard a guess probably outside the 12 mile limit.

What's particularly worrying about this case is the implication for the skipper being responsible for things that happen to divers once they have left the vessel and are under the water as well as onboard.

The only outcome from that will be more days of no diving as the skipper will be scared to leave themself exposed and a further nail in the coffin of UK diving.

One skipper that I have used a number of times for angling stopped taking divers out because he had no control over them once they were underwater.
That was a number of years ago. I think he saw the way things were going.

[MikeF]

And I know a few ex dive charter boats/skippers that will no longer take divers out and have switched to nature watching.

This really needs nipping in the bud and you would hope our national governing body would be offering assistance in whatever way they can.

[Chrisch]

...
What's particularly worrying about this case is the implication for the skipper being responsible for things that happen to divers once they have left the vessel and are under the water as well as onboard.

The only outcome from that will be more days of no diving as the skipper will be scared to leave themself exposed and a further nail in the coffin of UK diving.

I think it is well established that the boat operator has no influence or control over divers once out the vessel. This is not the first time this situation has occurred.

At a guess the claim probably is being tried as the injury occurred on board. This opens a window to get compensation from the boat insurer.

[steelemonkey]

Why is it stated that the boy has won the right to sue. I though only adults could do that or is the law different in Scotland. It seems to me just "sympathy reporting."
Also, fair enough that the family needs financial support in the future but should that not be covered by the adequate insurance that a sensible family man would have organised....

[Neilwood]

Why is it stated that the boy has won the right to sue. I though only adults could do that or is the law different in Scotland. It seems to me just "sympathy reporting."
Also, fair enough that the family needs financial support in the future but should that not be covered by the adequate insurance that a sensible family man would have organised....

I think it is the case that the boy (represented by his legal guardian ie his mother) has won the right to sue - for some reason there seems to be a different time scale for the boy as opposed to his mother.

If the statements in the article are correct, I think it was an unfortunate accident possibly brought on by a fall which may have affected the diver, his equipment and his mindset.

I think this is a sad case and very worrying. Should it be found that the skipper is responsible, I can see the vast majority of skippers closing their gangways to divers. Of course, the court has only ruled on the legality of the law suit and not the lawsuit in itself. It might well be that, once the case has been presented, that there is no case for the skipper to answer and that the one person responsible for the safety of the dive (the diver himself) possibly took the wrong decision to dive that day.

As you say though a sensible person would have insurance in the event of death or injury especially if doing fairly extensive technical dives (as a dive to 100m would be in most peoples eyes).

[Chrisch]

...
I think this is a sad case and very worrying. Should it be found that the skipper is responsible, I can see the vast majority of skippers closing their gangways to divers.....

Without more data it is hard to see exactly what is going on. The skipper - IMHO - cannot be "responsible" unless he was aware the decks were unsafe and did nothing about it. However his insurance cover should include injury whilst on his "premisses". The injury occurs in the workplace but without negligence. So as an analogy you slip up in Tescos for no good reason you should be able to claim against their public liability insurance, but it isn't their fault.

For me this is a bit of a minefield as you can see things to suggest that a public liability should cover "accident" but insurance companies seem to want "fault". It is unclear how and when things are sorted and whether insurers just pay out rather than fight or if there is actually a precedent.

If I were an ambulance chaser I would see this as "worth a punt". Then get your PR people to start the ball rolling so it is in the news.

[WFO]

Her husband loved doing something so she tries to fuck it up for the rest of us.

As someone who loves diving and wants to run a dive business... yeah cheers for that, hope she shits a hedgehog.

[cathal]

Would love to get a qualified legal opinion on this i.e. a practising solicitor's view. There are a lot of legal aspects to this case that need to be resolved.

[Chrisch]

Her husband loved doing something so she tries to fuck it up for the rest of us.

As someone who loves diving and wants to run a dive business... yeah cheers for that, hope she shits a hedgehog.

With an attitude like that don't bother you won't have any customers.