Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
KybrSose@ao*.co* wrote: >Why can the Technical Standard group use o2 safely while ignoring >the warnings of the US standard?? > The answer lies i think in the word liability. Those using the US standard >are probably giving their advice tempered by the fear of lawsuits, a common >problem in the US. The Technical Standard people have found what they >consider the true physical limits of safe o2 handling and want to pass this >info along. However when those who are unsure of the Technical Standard >group turn to the US standard group they are told conflicting information >because the US standard does not want to be involved in any way with an >accident or a fatality or injury. I don't buy the liability argument -- from a lawyer's perspective, creating a new standard just for diving invites lawsuits, it doesn't deter them. [Warning: legal shit to follow -- delete now] Whenever you file a products liability lawsuit like you're describing you look to two primary things to establish fault: 1) Did the responsible party follow the industry standard? and 2) Should they have known that the industry standard wasn't good enough and followed a stricter standard? If everyone in diving adopted the gas industry's established rules for handling O2 and not the BS "you have to 02 clean everything" scuba standard, then a defendant could point to the gas industry's long-standing rules and the scientific research that back them up: "The gas industry standard are X -- they're backed by 50 years of use and all this research -- I followed them to the letter -- here's the proof" Sure, you'll lose the occasional case where a jury finds that you should have followed a stricter standard of care, but not many. But the present confusion of standards in the dive industry undercuts this defense because there's a new "dive industry only" standard that not everybody follows: If someone says "Don't sue me -- I followed established gas industry procedures" you can undercut it with "But did you follow the _dive industry_ rules?" And if you're a shop that follows the dive industry rules and an accident still happens, you can undercut the defense with: "Did you 02 clean this particular tank before you filled it? No -- then how do you know it was properly 02 cleaned? You don't -- when then weren't you negligent in filling a tank that you didn't personally know was 02 cleaned?" At that point, it's a little too late to say: Well the dive industry's 02 cleaning standards are unnecessary bullshit that I really didn't have to follow..." If you design standards that people don't follow, you're increasing your liability exposure, not decreasing it. The same "Keep It Clean" principles that are true for gear configuration are true here, but then I guess it's no surprise even the lawyers that DEMA, PADI and rest hire are strokes. Best - Bill -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send list subscription requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]