No matter what operation you
dive with these days, it’s almost
certain you’ll be asked to sign a
waiver, most likely saying that you
will be unable to hold the operator
responsible for any accident,
no matter what role he has in it.
Period. You’ll be handed a waiver
if you take an advanced certification
class, take a tank off the
beach in Bonaire, or travel on a
live-aboard. And, whether you like
it or not, most often these waivers
hold up in court.
This is the last of a three-part
  series on the difficulty injured
  and deceased divers face in
  bringing lawsuits, based in large
  part on research conducted by
  Phyllis G. Coleman, Professor of
  Law at Nova Southeastern University
  in Fort Lauderdale; it appeared
  in the Journal of Maritime
  Law and Commerce.  
Although they are strictly
  construed, a well-drafted preaccident
  waiver or release will
  absolve a defendant from liability
  in a diving case if he can show: 1)
  the clause was knowingly agreed
  to and clearly spelled out the
  dangers of diving (i.e., there was
  informed consent); 2) the clause
  was not inconsistent with public
  policy; and, 3) the clause does not
  constitute an invalid adhesion
  contract.  
For example, in Mitchell v.
  Lang Sales, after signing a release,
  the decedent drowned after
  becoming entangled in guide
  lines set by a defendant. Her
  husband sued. In upholding the
  release, the court noted the clear
  language of the release coupled
  with the inherent risks of diving,
  the “voluminous instructional
  materials” concerning dangers associated with diving defendants
gave to decedent, and the fact
that decedent was in an advanced
course, “point towards an intelligent
and informed consent to the
release.”
  
    | “And, whether we like it or not, it appears that
 most often these waivers
 hold up in court.”
 | 
Similarly, in Baschuk v. Diver’s
  Way Scuba, the court rejected
  plaintiff’s claim that the release
  she had signed applied only to
  negligence during actual class
  participation. She failed to inform
  her instructor about her history
  of ear problems before she
  submitted the release form. Once
  she told him, the instructor told
  her to obtain medical approval to
  dive but he neglected to follow up. When she suffered a punctured
eardrum during the fourth
class, she sued. According to the
court, the record shows that the
liability release signed by the
plaintiff in clear and unequivocal
language expressed the intent to
relieve the defendant of all
liability for personal injuries to
the plaintiff caused by the
defendant’s negligence. The
liability release was enforceable.
In Hewitt v. Miller, the court
  upheld a release signed by
  decedent before enrolling in an
  advanced scuba class. Following
  his disappearance without a trace
  during the class’ second dive,
  defendants denied liability based
  on the release. The court agreed,
  finding the language, which was
  unambiguous and conspicuous,
  clearly covered this type of
  accident.  
Just how detailed a release or
  waiver must be to qualify as
  “unambiguous” is unclear.
  However, as Whitlock v. Duke
  University shows, a form will not
  automatically be insufficient
  simply because it does not list
  every type of danger. Plaintiff
  participated in an experimental
  simulated deep dive and, as a
  result, suffered permanent brain
  damage. Claiming he had not
  been warned about such a
  possibility, he sued the parties
  who conducted the experiment.
  In granting defendants’ motion
  for summary judgment, the court
  found that, although the form
  failed to warn about brain damage,
  there was no evidence that there was a “reasonably foreseeable
... risk of brain damage
different from that normally
associated with decompression
and unique to experimental deep
diving.”
On the other hand, a release
  that fails to express the parties’
  intent “in unmistakable language”
  will not be upheld. In Stoll v.
  Niagara Scuba Sports, the appellate
  court held that summary judgment
  should not have been
  granted where defendant’s release
  was vaguely worded and there
  were questions whether plaintiff
  was “fully advised of the potential
  dangers” involved in diving.
  Likewise, in Reuther v. Southern
  Cross Club, plaintiff had signed a
  form releasing defendant “from
  any and all claims.” The court
  held this wording did not necessarily
  provide protection for
  injuries suffered on the Club’s
  boat en route to the dive site.  
Even when a release is clear,
  however, some courts refuse to
  enforce them because to do so
  would violate important social
  interests. In particular, courts are
  concerned that recreational
  business owners, immunized by
  broad releases, would lose their
  incentive to take safety precautions
  and obtain sufficient
  insurance even though, relative to
  their customers, they are in the
  best position to act. Likewise, if a
  special legal relationship exists
  between diver and defendant,
  some courts have found the
  relationship provides a basis to
  deny enforcement of the release.  
Several plaintiffs have sought
  to invalidate their releases on the
  ground that they represent
  inequitable adhesion contracts.
  For the most part, such arguments
  have failed.  
In Marshall v. Blue Springs
  Corp., for example, plaintiff had
  signed a release “for any occurrence
  in connection with this
  diving class that may result in
  injury or death.” To complete the
  course, he was required to sign an
  additional waiver releasing the
  park where the dive was to take
  place for “any accidents or mishaps which may occur while
  scuba diving. . . .” Despite these
  waivers, plaintiff sued both the
  school and park when he injured
  himself while attempting to put
  on his fins in preparation for a
  dive. In dismissing the suit, the
  court rejected the argument that
  the releases were adhesion
  contracts. Finding no evidence he
  had been forced to sign the
  forms, the court pointed out the
  plaintiff could have pursued other
  options. Such as looking for a
  course or dive site that did not
  require releases or abandoning
  his quest for scuba certification.  
Coleman notes, however, that
  a valid release will probably not
  absolve a defendant of gross
  negligence.  
In conclusion, you never have
  to sign a release, but then you
  most likely won’t get to dive. You
  may try to modify the release, but
  you may not be successful.
  Basically, when you go diving
  assume the responsibility is yours,
  yours entirely, and enjoy the dive.
  But, dive safely.  
— Ben Davison