Max depths for various qualifications

[Hickdive]

Most of them end up in court - in a fatal accident inquiry or Coroner's Court. At that point you can expect every single detail including training and diving practices to be gone through in great detail.

You would think, however I have read a FAI enquiry report on a double fatality in which it was absolutely clear that the Sheriff had not clue one and that the 'expert' witnesses called, being plice and commercial divers, didn't have clue one about recreational diving either. The result was a report that was as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Yes, the training and practices might be examined but, unless they are examined by people with relevant knowledge, you might as well not bother.

[Hickdive]

It doesn't matter a jot if they get an expert witness to say a 50m dive on air isn't advisable, what matters is that NO reasonable expert WOULD say diving to 50m on air IS acceptable, if you follow.

There is a lot of paranoia about getting sued (like a certain LDS v near me) most of the time it's based upon what might happen in court, rather than any sound legal expertise. It can be a lot more difficult to win a law suit than most people think, esp in areas of professional negligence.

Precisely, the 'test of professional negligence' and the moment you can demonstrate that under similar circumstances someone of similar competence could do the same then any allegation of professional negligence would fail. I'm reasonably confident that this is the standard that would be applied, even in an amateur diving situation.

Thus, if one SITA member will put nitrox fills into a cylinder cleaned by another SITA member it clearly wouldn't be negligent for other SITA members to do the same.

[mjgreen]

Precisely, the 'test of professional negligence' and the moment you can demonstrate that under similar circumstances someone of similar competence could do the same then any allegation of professional negligence would fail. I'm reasonably confident that this is the standard that would be applied, even in an amateur diving situation.

Thus, if one SITA member will put nitrox fills into a cylinder cleaned by another SITA member it clearly wouldn't be negligent for other SITA members to do the same.

Btw, there isn't strictly any such thing as 'professional negligence' per se - just that the duty of care on a 'professional' is judged to a higher standard - but it's all just plain old negligence... Well that's not strictly true - negligence by a professional is referred to by some as professional negligence, but it's not a distinct area & there is no 'test of professional negligence'

A lot of problem with discussion of negligence & similar law in diving is that its grossly over simplified, so as to incomplete at best and plain wrong at worst. It's like maths 1 + 2 + 3 + x - y doesn't equal 6 - if you ignore x and y, the answer *may* be correct, but since you've omitted parts of the equation, the answer is wrong.

Also people assume that the tests are static - they're not. We live in a common law system, where the courts "make law" through their judgements (and the courts themselves are responsible for negligence - see Donaghue v Stevenson and the successive line of cases). Thus example of remoteness & causation - if I'm driving my car, and hit another car, which hits a tree, which falls into someone's house, which damages a power cable, electrocuting the man next door - now, how far along that line I'm liable for comes down to remoteness & causation - liability probably extends to the tree, but in extreme cases a court may well decide I'm responsible for more or all of it were I *bloody* negligent.

People also forget that exclusion clauses (disclaimers) are non-effective in this country for disclaiming liability in negligence, further they're also subject to a "reasonableness" test by the Unfair Contract Terms Act and if I remember correctly stuff like the supply of goods & services act can't be disregarded either where the recipient is a consumer not a business (though I could be wrong on that one - would have to check), so you would have to consider the whole picture.

That's not to say that everyone needs to run round in mass hysteria scared of getting sued - happily this country isn't like the US where people sue for everything and anything (and the courts wouldn't be too amused if they did). Follow standards & you should be fine, not because those standards provide a lock solid defence, but because its good practice, minimising accidents themselves which is what would get you sued.

[Hickdive]

Btw, there isn't strictly any such thing as 'professional negligence' per se - just that the duty of care on a 'professional' is judged to a higher standard - but it's all just plain old negligence... Well that's not strictly true - negligence by a professional is referred to by some as professional negligence, but it's not a distinct area & there is no 'test of professional negligence'

A lot of problem with discussion of negligence & similar law in diving is that its grossly over simplified, so as to incomplete at best and plain wrong at worst. It's like maths 1 + 2 + 3 + x - y doesn't equal 6 - if you ignore x and y, the answer *may* be correct, but since you've omitted parts of the equation, the answer is wrong.

No, the standard is not higher. The 'professional' element is a little misleading but it refers to the relative qualification of someone to carry out whatever task and whether or not someone else of the same standard of knowledge and qualification, operating in similar circumstances, would act in the same manner.

If a surgeon carries out an operation to remove an appendix and manages to kill the patient by attempting to remove it via their anus, something that no other surgeon would do, then they are professionally negligent. If you or I (and I assume you're not a surgeon here) were stuck in the jungle with a casuality who we had to remove the appendix from them or they would surely die and we attempted to remove it via their anus and they died we might be guilty of negligence but not professional negligence.

Of course, we might be speaking of different legal systems here.

[fishyheid]

Actually in Scotland that test does exist. Lord (President) Clyde observed it in Hunter v Hanley 1955 SC 200 (this was absorbed into English Law by McNair J in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118).

'...in regard to deviation from ordinary professional practice... such deviation is not neccessarily evidence of negligence. Indeed it would be diasterous if this were so, for all inducement to progress in medical science would then be destroyed. Even a substancial deviation from normal practice may be warrented by the particular circumsatnces. To establish liabity by a doctor where deviation from normal practice is alledged, three facts require to be established. First of all it must be proved that there is a normal practice; secondly it must be proved that the defender has not adopted that practice; and thirdly (and this is of crucial importance)it must be established that the course which the doctor adopted is one which no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken if he had been acting with ordinary care'.


Source J Thomson, Delictual Liabliity 3rd ed

[Hickdive]

Actually in Scotland that test does exist. Lord (President) Clyde observed it in Hunter v Hanley 1955 SC 200 (this was absorbed into English Law by McNair J in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118).

'it must be established that the course which the doctor adopted is one which no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken if he had been acting with ordinary care'.


Source J Thomson, Delictual Liabliity 3rd ed

See what studying for your exams does - it makes you recall the cases I've long since forgotten ('cos they don't affect me, except when laughing at the latest attempt at clairvoyancing) . That's the quote that was rattling round in the back of my head, ta!

[fishyheid]

I tell you mate, I can't wait to get back to campus (nothing to do with nubile totty)

[mjgreen]

See what studying for your exams does - it makes you recall the cases I've long since forgotten ('cos they don't affect me, except when laughing at the latest attempt at clairvoyancing) . That's the quote that was rattling round in the back of my head, ta!

Not familiar with medical negligence (which that case relates to, and is definitely regarded as a distinct area - not least due to complexity), BUT I would say (non-medical) professional negligence is simply an application of the normal tests of duty of care - the standard is higher since they're a) doing it for money and b) holding themselves out as having a higher level of skill & knowledge.

but as I noted above, BSAC is an interesting case - public policy considerations relating to public/voluntary bodies affecting duty of care, and plus they're volunteers rather than professionals (in the monetary sense - though obviously BSAC instructors who do do it professionally would be an exception).

[Hickdive]

I tell you mate, I can't wait to get back to campus (nothing to do with nubile totty)

I thought you went to Clatty's for that. No, wait, what am I saying? You get nurses in Clatty's, not nubile totty (or anyone carrying cake )

[mjgreen]

I tell you mate, I can't wait to get back to campus (nothing to do with nubile totty)

I want nubile totty (and cheap student alcohol) Just finished LPC - last exam tommorrow (Public Companies & Equity Finance - urgh), then I have to get one of those job things