At 09:57 PM 10/16/01 +0800, Bjorn Vang Jensen wrote:

Bob wrote:
> > Most probably wrong claim about the Wave Dancer not carrying
> > insurance in his preceding post to which I had already replied.
>
>To be fair, Don did not claim that. He was, if I am not very much mistaken,
>being sarcastic, suggesting that if their waiver was indeed watertight,
>there would be no need for them to carry insurance. A fair comment, I think

Thank you Bjorn, and you are correct.  I was being sarcastic.

Here is the link to the Wave Dancer release:

http://www.peterhughes.com/PDF%20Files/New%20Waiver%20-%20wave.pdf

The language I cited earlier defining releasees is identical simply
substituting the Belize group.  My point on third-party suits remains the
same.

Thanks also for the kind words.  I appreciate knowing that I am making
sense to someone. :)

BTW, over the years I have always been impressed with your legal
analyses.  If it wasn't such a nasty business, I say you should have been a
lawyer.

A few years ago we had the discussion in scuba-L about legal releases and
there effectiveness in the US.  Here is a link to a note I wrote at that time:

http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9904B&L=scuba-l&P=R4790

But those cases all dealt with injury or death while actually scuba
diving.  The deaths in this case, legally at least, had nothing to do with
scuba diving.  I agree that the Paragraph 13 cited by Bob would be designed
to cover everything else.  But as you asked, can "unseaworthiness" be
released?  That is a very different question.  I don't know the answer and
I will not likely have time to look it up anytime soon.  Just food for thought.

Dive safe,

/Don