On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:52:29 -0500, Mike Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>On 15 Oct 2001, at 17:31, Reef Fish wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:06:52 -0500, Mike Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >I would think that we could safely ASSUME that an official
>> >investigation is ongoing as there was loss of life in this incident.
>>
>> That's a reasonable assumption NORMALLY!
>>
>> A BAD assumption in this case, because each passenger had signed a
>> COMPREHENSIVE waiver and release like you've never seen anywhere else
>> in the scuba world, or the world for that matter, before a diver can
>> dive on a Peter Hughes liveaboard.
>
>Just because the signed a waiver does not mean that the proper
>authorities will not conduct an investigation.
What "proper authority"?
>It would amaze me if
>they declined to investigate such a serious accident regardless of
>what the passengers signed.
By they you mean someone in the Peter Hughes organization? There is
no incentive for them, given the WAIVER. Even if they do an internal
investigation, do you really think they'll let the PUBLIC know any
damaging result to themselves?
>> The loss of life, even if CAUSED by the NEGLIGENCE of the Captain and
>> crew of a Peter Hughes liveaboard boat, is covered under the WAIVER.
>
>That's an assumption. There's no guarantee that it will hold up until
>decided by a court of law.
You got it bass ackwards. :-) It's guaranteed UNLESS you can cite
a case in which the waiver did not hold up by a court of law!
>>
>> Therefore there is no incentive for anyone associated with the PhD
>> organization to say or do anything other than claiming innocense and
>> not do any investigation.
>
>I agree that they would claim innocence, but I disagree as to their
>incentive to perform an internal investigation. They have a reputation
>to uphold, and regardless of the waivers signed by the passengers,
>there will more than likely be lawsuits that they will have to defend.
>
They defend it by saying "we did no wrong", whether they are wrong or
not. Nobody outside the organization would know anything about the
right or wrong. I just don't believe having a wolf investigate a case
in which chickens might have been eaten by wolves.
>> GIVEN that the entire PhD organization is "immune" to procecution,
>> under the signed WAIVER and RELEASE written by a team of lawyers
>> working for Peter Hughes, to cover even their negligence, it's all the
>> more reason for my paragraph above.
>
>I think you are making an assumption here that they are immune to
>prosecution.
Show me a case in which they're NOT, then you have a case.
>They are most definitely not immune to criminal prosecution
NOW we come a full circle back to the "criminal prosecution" term,
in which Don (like many others) said there is "no evidence", and
the evidence will never come because the truth lies in the Capt
and crew who had been gagged from speaking out! Any such lawsuit
will be thrown out of court for LACK of evidence to file such a
suit!
>Has their waiver been tested in court?
Not to MY knowledge. That's my whole point. If they had indeed been
tested (challenged) in court, the tests must have lost if no one can
cite a case of a "successful challenge" of the WAIVER agreement.
>>
>> It's a SPECIAL case, because of the air-tight clauses the lawyers of
>> the PhD Inc had drawn up. Some will say it won't hold up. If so, one
>> would have to SHOW an actual case in which the signed Peter Hughes
>> liveaboard waiver did not cover them for the terms of waiver.
>
>Again the words "air-tight" are a guess on your part unless you can
>show that they HAVE held up under the scrutiny of the court. And if
>the case(s) are tried before a jury of their peers, they might not hold
>up anyway.
Mike, you're hung up on this point. Their WAIVER HOLDS (any fool can
read the plain English) unless one knows of a case in which it had
been successfully beaten. The burden of proof is on ANYONE who
thinks the WAIVER clauses won't hold up to SHOW a case in which they
didn't hold up.
Don't forget that Peter Hughes has a team of lawyers who worked up
those "air-tight" clauses. The odds are overwhelming in THEIR favor.
Read this clause carefully (only ONE of 20):
----------------------------------------------------------
12. I understand and agree
(WAIVER AND RELEASE)
freely and voluntarily. forever, to release, discharge, waive and
relinquish, in favor of the Releasee, any and all claims, demands or
causes of action, whether matured or unmatured,foreseen or unforeseen,
arising from, or inconnection with, any of the Activities including,
without limitation, those for or relating to accident, personal
injury, illness, theft, property damage and/or wrongful death occurring
to me, arising out of, relating to, or as a result of my engaging in
the Activities, wherever and however much injuries, damages or death
may occur and for whatever period of time the Activities may continue,
whether caused by negligence of Releasee or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------
Signed by all passengers. Find a lawyer to beat it or a case in which
it was beaten!
-- Bob.
-- Bob.
|
