AD 2015 Q4
This is the “not do” component. It is also somewhat harder to define. After all, who determines the duty to care and the non-compliance thereto in unique emergency situations? Still, this component is more likely to lead to a recovery of damages. Put differently, when you are under a legal duty to take reasonable care and you do not do it, then you could be held liable for damages that are directly caused by the breach of that duty. The key elements are “reasonable care” and “directly caused”. Let’s break that down, starting with directly caused. This means that the damages are linked directly to the failure to perform the reasonable duty. This is called a causal connection. In other words, there must be a connection between the duty not complied with and the damages. deep diving are so hazardous that it may well be better to only jeopardise the life of one individual rather than two. That is, of course, as long as no one is put at risk during the subsequent body recovery or rescue efforts! Well, as a qualified instructor and dive leader, I shall continue to teach and advocate the buddy system. I do not like the idea of diving alone anyway. I prefer to share the joys of diving with someone able to share the memories of the dive. To me, diving is, and remains, a team sport. Which introduces another consideration: How would the principle of duty to take care be applied to children who dive? Training agencies impose age and depth restrictions on children who enter the sport before the age of 14. Depending on the age and diving course, a child may be required to dive with an instructor or at least another adult dive buddy. If the adult were to get into trouble, the child would not be expected to meet the duty of care of another adult. He/she would be held to an age appropriate standard. What about all those waivers? As mentioned in the previous article, waivers define the boundaries of the self-imposed risk divers are willing to take by requiring that they acknowledge them. Waivers do not remove all the potential claims for negligence and non-compliance with a duty of care. As such, it is left to our courts to ultimately interpret the content of a waiver within the actual context of damage or injury.
This is the “not do” component. It is also somewhat harder to define. After all, who determines the duty to care and the non-compliance thereto in unique emergency situations? Still, this component is more likely to lead to a recovery of damages. Put differently, when you are under a legal duty to take reasonable care and you do not do it, then you could be held liable for damages that are directly caused by the breach of that duty. The key elements are “reasonable care” and “directly caused”. Let’s break that down, starting with directly caused. This means that the damages are linked directly to the failure to perform the reasonable duty. This is called a causal connection. In other words, there must be a connection between the duty not complied with and the damages.
deep diving are so hazardous that it may well be better to only jeopardise the life of one individual rather than two. That is, of course, as long as no one is put at risk during the subsequent body recovery or rescue efforts! Well, as a qualified instructor and dive leader, I shall continue to teach and advocate the buddy system. I do not like the idea of diving alone anyway. I prefer to share the joys of diving with someone able to share the memories of the dive. To me, diving is, and remains, a team sport. Which introduces another consideration: How would the principle of duty to take care be applied to children who dive? Training agencies impose age and depth restrictions on children who enter the sport before the age of 14. Depending on the age and diving course, a child may be required to dive with an instructor or at least another adult dive buddy. If the adult were to get into trouble, the child would not be expected to meet the duty of care of another adult. He/she would be held to an age appropriate standard. What about all those waivers? As mentioned in the previous article, waivers define the boundaries of the self-imposed risk divers are willing to take by requiring that they acknowledge them. Waivers do not remove all the potential claims for negligence and non-compliance with a duty of care. As such, it is left to our courts to ultimately interpret the content of a waiver within the actual context of damage or injury.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
When sponge-eating fish are<br />
overharvested, sponges can<br />
quickly overgrow and kill<br />
reef-building corals.<br />
have been mostly protected from fishing. We predicted that the removal<br />
of sponge predators on overfished reefs would allow the undefended<br />
sponge species to flourish, while these species would be held in check by<br />
sponge predators on less-fished reefs — and that’s exactly what we found.<br />
In particular, angelfishes had a dramatic effect on the sponge species<br />
they like to eat. Our results showed that overfishing of sponge predators<br />
altered the community of sponges in favor of faster-growing, undefended<br />
sponge species.<br />
Overfishing of Caribbean reefs changed more than just the sponge<br />
community. Our Caribbean-wide study documented three times more<br />
sponge overgrowth of reef-building corals on overfished reefs, a direct<br />
consequence of undefended sponges growing unchecked by sponge<br />
predators. With the fast-growing sponges free from predation on<br />
overfished reefs, they were able to smother adjacent reef-building corals.<br />
Divers know that corals, not sponges, build the reefs we cherish.<br />
Caribbean coral reefs provide shoreline protection for reef-adjacent<br />
countries as well as millions of dollars in annual tourist revenue. For the<br />
conservation of coral, the results of our research justify the protection of<br />
sponge predators on Caribbean reefs. The first course of action should be<br />
to ban fish-trapping and netting practices that indiscriminately remove<br />
fishes of all species. Sponge predators, particularly angelfishes, warrant<br />
special protection, especially from spearfishing.<br />
Divers can help by encouraging Caribbean governments to enact<br />
protective legislation and to fund management programs and by<br />
supporting marine parks and protected areas that enforce fishing<br />
restrictions. These actions can help restore reef ecosystems that are<br />
severely out of balance.<br />
JOE PAWLIK<br />
in<br />
FIJI...<br />
motion<br />
color<br />
7 nights • 5 dive days<br />
All meals and more...<br />
RAKIRAKI, VITI LEVU<br />
Wananavu Beach Resort<br />
Free Massage<br />
from $1,500 pp/dbl<br />
BEQA ISLAND<br />
Beqa Lagoon Resort<br />
2-for-1 in December<br />
from $900 pp/dbl<br />
K<strong>AD</strong>AVU ISLAND<br />
Matava Eco Resort<br />
Manta Experience<br />
from $1,530 pp/dbl<br />
PACIFIC HARBOUR, VITI LEVU<br />
Waidroka Bay Resort<br />
15 Boat Dives...<br />
including shark dive!<br />
from $1,675 pp/dbl<br />
800-328-2288<br />
caradonna.com<br />
All packages include 7 nights, 5 days of 2-tank boat<br />
dives, all meals, airport transfers, taxes and service<br />
charges. Rates are per person, double occupancy<br />
and subject to availability, currency fluctuation, and<br />
standard terms and conditions.<br />
SOT#2111993-40 • WSOT#603254369 • FSOT#38781<br />
ALERTDIVER.COM | 23
Change language