Scuba diver "wrongful death" law suit in WA

General banter about diving and why we love it.
User avatar
Emilyrc
Dive-aholic
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: Scuba diver "wrongful death" law suit in WA

Post by Emilyrc »

What's the point in a lawsuit like this? Theres no loss of substantial income, and getting a large sum of money (if the family wins) is not going to bring the deceased back.

Its just sad.
User avatar
Nwbrewer
I've Got Gills
Posts: 4620
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:59 am

Re: Scuba diver "wrongful death" law suit in WA

Post by Nwbrewer »

Emilyrc wrote:What's the point in a lawsuit like this? Theres no loss of substantial income, and getting a large sum of money (if the family wins) is not going to bring the deceased back.

Its just sad.

One hopes that if the plaintiff truly believe what the lawsuit claims, (that the were defendants were grossly negligent, and that the site selection, training and materials provided led to an unsafe situation) that the point would be to prevent any future injury or loss of life.
"Screw "annual" service,... I get them serviced when they break." - CaptnJack (paraphrased)


"you do realize you're supposed to mix the :koolaid: with water and drink it, not snort the powder directly from the packet, right? :smt064 " - Spatman
User avatar
RenaB
Aquaphile
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 6:13 pm

Re: Scuba diver "wrongful death" law suit in WA

Post by RenaB »

Uh yeah! It sets precedent for the future.

How can you say there isn't loss of substantial income? If that person lived they would have provided family to others (grandchildren), and income. If there is gross negligence you can't sign away your rights to a trial, so the forms don't hold up in those situations. I am also not really understanding the situation. The instructor took the buddy out of the water and left the other diver alone? Doesn't sound reasonable to me. Maybe that's where the problem lies?
Rena

Drink water, breathe air. Never get these mixed up.
User avatar
fmerkel
I've Got Gills
Posts: 1037
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:45 pm

Re: Scuba diver "wrongful death" law suit in WA

Post by fmerkel »

As in the sledding death, I doubt the reports are very accurate. This is also a case that is from 2008. I would need a diary to remember what I was doing that long ago. Even then lots of details would be lost. It was evident from the first hand testimony that stories can get pretty jumbled in an emergency. One witness would often refute another. Perspectives are often kind of binary in these kind of cases and it's the lawyers job to tease that apart even more if they can.
On top of that the jurors come in with a life history and a perspective. In the case I was on I think everyone tried to be as ethical as they could, but opinions about what was just and ethical were divided.\

What is 'negligence'? You can always do more, always. In the case of a young person that died tragically this will be a very big factor.
What standards should be applied?
What would a 'reasonable person' have done in this situation?
What is 'ordinary care' as it applies to negligence?
The jury ends up being the sole judges of witness credibility, along with the value and weight to all testimony.

Our jury had 22 separate instructions that were read verbatim to us by the judge. We then needed to take these instructions (the law) back and deliberate them. In a case like this, it's a daunting task because you will be part of a small group that ultimately determines the outcome that is incredibly important to at least a few people, and potentially to many more.
To Air is Human,
To Respire, Divine.
User avatar
RenaB
Aquaphile
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 6:13 pm

Re: Scuba diver "wrongful death" law suit in WA

Post by RenaB »

Hi fmerkel,

I have a question. I have something I have noticed on jury panels, as I have served before. I was wondering when the jury was split, how many of those were women in the yes category? I ask this because I find it interesting that in my experience women seem to ignore what the law says and run with well, it's just wrong so someone needs to fix it. Or, well, the cops caught him, but he wasn't hurting anyone. Right, this time. It's illegal, you don't change that here. Now, I am sure that I am going to get slammed here for saying this, but I am a women, giving me insight that men would like ....well insert bad word here.

Also, I find it interesting that you want to sue someone because you weren't doing your job as a parent. Case and point recently there was a child that got away from the parents and hit by a car. They want to sue the driver who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Im sorry that you lost a child, but really look at your part.
Rena

Drink water, breathe air. Never get these mixed up.
User avatar
fmerkel
I've Got Gills
Posts: 1037
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:45 pm

Re: Scuba diver "wrongful death" law suit in WA

Post by fmerkel »

We had about an even gender split. In the end a man and woman would not change. Most of the jurors that initially sided on yes-negligence were women and the one man. That decision seemed to be based on the notion that 'if a child died someone needed to do something'. The man expressed this opinion also.
Most of the 'yes' folks had no experience with snow sliding sports at all....not a clue. That seemed to be a stronger determiner than gender, but more of the women were not risk takers. Risk takers invariably took far more personal responsibility, including for their own children. When I explain this case to my friends, who are mostly risk takers,while being as neutral as I can about it, they almost always wonder why it even went to trial. They simply don't understand.

I think diving jury cases are going to have some of the same issues....not a clue about diving, none, and maybe won't much care. The plaintiff lawyer will work that angle very hard. They will work diligently to stuff the jury with sympathetic people with little to no background in risk sports. That will play a critical part, maybe the most critical, unless there is real, obvious, and provable negligence. Of course the defense will try to do the opposite. Therein will be the lawyer's art.

The non-snow folks had trouble accepting the experience of the outdoor/skiing jurors. They did initially accept the testimony of the plaintiff [human factors] safety expert that was purely academic (impressive credentials though). If you didn't know, it sounded pretty reasonable.
The defense expert had 40 years in the ski industry developing safety and education standards. He pretty much created them. He did not have the same academic credentials, his was working field experience. He refuted almost all the plaintiff's remedial suggestions (except signage) as difficult or dangerous themselves. The skiers found this quite reasonable. No ski area I've ever been to (30+ years skiing), including the Snoqualmie areas either side of the accident, use the methods he suggested. They simply were not practical and created other hazards. The non-skiers didn't get it. No basis for understanding the problem. They simply disregarded it in favor of 'someone should have done something, a child died'.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". Paul Simon

Let me be clear that these people were intelligent and genuinely concerned for safety in what they saw as a hostile environment. They simply did not understand much about that environment. They also were of the opinion that the parents made a serious mistake and were a huge part of causing the accident. To them the parents carried a majority of the responsibility. They just thought the Mountaineers should bear some. Luckily we never had to get to the messy business of determining THAT issue.
To Air is Human,
To Respire, Divine.
Post Reply