The lawyers perspective: "Hmmm, wonder if I can make some dough off one 
or both of these assholes".

   Jim

On 5/21/97 8:22 PM Bill Wolk wrote:

>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'.




--
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]