If you are injured or killed during a dive, there is a small likelihood that a lawsuit could result; it might be initiated by your survivors, or by a group of surviving family members, or even by a public interests agency. What does this have to do with you? Read on to learn how just one case could have a negative impact on the availability of challenging dive sites in places like the Galapagos, Palau, the Cocos Islands and Solomon Islands, most of Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea. Offering liveaboard adventures that allow divers to explore independently, in strong currents, or in small groups led by divemasters, many of the world's most exciting dive sites also come with inherent dangers attached.
The Dos Amigos Pequeno Case
On May 16th of 2003, a group of nine sport diving enthusiasts visited this pinnacle, which is located about 400 miles from Costa Rica's mainland, off the west end of Cocos Island. This area is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a designated National Park, which is renowned for its profusion of sharks, rays, turtles, whales, and massive schools of fish. Considered to be one of the world's best places to dive, and attracting over 1,200 sports divers each year, the site is routinely visited by a group of four primary diving vessels.
On the day the accident occurred, the AMO divemaster and instructor, who we'll call John, conducted the usual thorough dive briefing, which all guests attended. A second short briefing was conducted prior to the divers entering the water. Buddy teams went out on their own, with dives not to exceed 55 minutes in run time.
Among the buddy teams was a diver we'll call Randy, age 56, who entered the water with his daughter, whom we'll call Sarah. Neither diver had any difficulties or apparent problems; but during the dive, the divemaster, John, saw neither of the two.
Sarah entered the water just before her father did, and it was later revealed that she made no contact with him during the dive; even though he was her dive buddy. She continued her dive despite this fact, surfacing without incident after more than 30 minutes of bottom time spent with other divers. After the rest of the divers surfaced, it became apparent that both John and Randy were missing. No one could recall having seen them during the dive; but no one saw signs of distress or other problems, either. No one knows, to this day, what happened to the two missing divers, despite the fact that the US Coast Guard and other agencies launched a search and rescue effort that lasted for days. A safety sausage and an empty scuba tank were the only pieces of equipment found.
Both men were experienced, qualified divers, and while both were well aware of the many potential problems existing at Dos Amigos Pequeno, both were equipped with proper safety and signaling devices. After a thorough investigation, it was concluded that neither ever surfaced; it was also determined that their bodies, which were never recovered, were probably consumed by some of the many sharks, including schooling hammerheads that inhabit the region and visit a cleaning station at the site.
The plaintiffs in the case were survivors of the two missing men; they filed multi-million dollar wrongful death claims and hired a supposed expert witness who had no expertise in any marine procedures; his opinions reflected his lack of expertise. Meanwhile, the defendants hired an expert witness with plenty of experience with all aspects of diving, including marine search and rescue.
During the trial, which was held in New Orleans Federal Court and which didn't begin until 2009, the plaintiff's witness failed to properly answer questions about the many factors which affected the 2003 dive. Even though he had initially claimed to have trained "thousands of divers," records showed that he had only ever issued two c-cards during the space of ten years.
In contrast, the witness retained by the defense had a thorough understanding of all factors regarding the case, and was able to support suppositions made by the US Coast Guard and other parties involved in the case. Due to his testimony, the jury returned a no fault, no monetary award verdict in favor of the defense.
The case had the potential to affect the way in which resorts and liveaboards allow divers to conduct themselves, and it had the potential to eliminate the practice of allowing independent buddy teams to operate without supervision. It could have eliminated the diving practices that exist at some of the world's most exquisite dive sites today.
As a diver, it is up to you to make the right decisions. It's up to you to be properly equipped, to be honest about your experience, and to abort a dive if you are uncomfortable with any aspect of the experience. While this case was indeed a tragedy, it served to illustrate that each of us is responsible for our own outcomes.