Shallow dive accident

[quincy]

Here is a link to Florida's comparative negligence law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.81.html

 

[justalayman]

There was a case quite near to me. Very similar to the case at hand. A major difference was there was no rope

Injured party got squat.


Very similar is worth little to nothing. As you’re continually told; each case will be dealt with on its own merits.

The law, believe it or not, really does make an attempt to be fair. Courts use the term “equitable” and it is used a LOT in civil law. Entire decisions may be based on the decision being equitable.

In your case, given the facts as stated; your share of negligence compared to the negligence of the business, well, to be equitable, that is fair to each party considering how each party’s actions influenced the result we have, well, let’s just say the check they would be required to issue would include zeros...and nothing else. Not only do I not see negligence on the part of the bar, I see your acts grossly negligent.

It’s too bad you got hurt but I see no reason the bad should be responsible for your rediculously stupid actions.

 

[ssatl]

Here is a link to Florida's comparative negligence law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.81.html

Thanks for sending.
I will look it over with my mom and dad

 

[ssatl]

Thanks for sending.
I will look it over with my mom and dad

I also think it would help to get other/different thoughts on this from the members of the forum.
Other perspectives cannot hurt

 

[quincy]

An attorney who is able to personally view the bar area and deck might find the establishment's setup fails to adequately protect patrons who, because the deck is part of a bar, are not always sober.

That might allow for a percentage of fault to be attributed to the property owner - although I think the roping should be enough even without signs.

You have received responses from several forum members already, by the way. The only "perspective" you should concern yourself with is that of your attorney.

 

[Zigner]

I also think it would help to get other/different thoughts on this from the members of the forum.
Other perspectives cannot hurt

You've received the perspectives - but the only one that's going to matter (at this point) is that of your attorney.

 

[quincy]

And the more this is discussed online, the unhappier your attorney will be that you have discussed the accident online.

Seriously, see an attorney in your area - sooner rather than later. You really should have seen a personal injury attorney last year after your accident.

Good luck.

 

[Eekamouse]

and this happened on their property?

Yes it did but it happened because you were buzzed and incredibly stupid, not because they set you up to become paralyzed. Water two feet deep is pretty easy to see how shallow it is. It sad that your own actions have led to you being so hurt but you are trying to shove the responsibility off on to the bar when it was your actions, not their's that put you where you're now at. It's worth seeing an attorney but don't get your hopes up.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Recap of the issues...
In favor of the bar.
1. OP was intoxicated at a level that shouldn't have been that noticeable to the servers. (0.10)
2. It wasn't a swimming area.
3. The OP went over a barrier.
4. The OP had been in the water their before and should have known the depth.

In favor of the OP.
1. There MAY not have been no swimming/diving signs.

Am I missing anything?

 

[quincy]

The expenses ssatl will have in managing his injury going forward are astronomical. I do not fault him for looking at his legal options.

Despite our assessment from afar, a personal injury attorney who is able to look at the facts closeup could find a small percentage of fault attributable to the establishment.

It is certainly worth exploring.

 

[cbg]

And this is why we need to have signs such as "Do Not Breathe Under Water", "If Door Is Not Open Do Not Enter", "Warning - Balcony Is Not At Ground Level", "Contains Nuts"(on a bag of nuts), and so on. Because people like you do stupid things and then whine, "But it didn't TELL me not to..." (do something it should have been obvious not to do).

I'm very sorry for your injuries. But the extent of your injuries has nothing to do with who is liable. And you have not posted anything to suggest that the bar has any liability that I can see.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Recap of the issues...
In favor of the bar.
1. OP was intoxicated at a level that shouldn't have been that noticeable to the servers. (0.10)

0.10 is per se impaired in most states, however how impaired the person is depends on tolerance. My wife would be a puddle on the floor if her BAC was that high. My step father appeared sober to the hospital staff when a blood draw showed 0.34.

 

[Zigner]

0.10 is per se impaired in most states...

For driving...

 

[quincy]

And this is why we need to have signs such as "Do Not Breathe Under Water", "If Door Is Not Open Do Not Enter", "Warning - Balcony Is Not At Ground Level", "Contains Nuts"(on a bag of nuts), and so on. Because people like you do stupid things and then whine, "But it didn't TELL me not to..." (do something it should have been obvious not to do).

I'm very sorry for your injuries. But the extent of your injuries has nothing to do with who is liable. And you have not posted anything to suggest that the bar has any liability that I can see.

You find warning labels on products largely because government laws and regulations dictate these warnings. These warnings work to protect both consumers and manufacturers from product liability suits.

You are less likely to find signs posted that warn of potential hazards or dangers.

But no matter how many warnings are placed on consumer goods, or how many signs are posted to warn of potential hazards or dangers, there will never be enough warnings or signs to prevent people from doing stupid things (like eating Tide Pods or getting out of cars to take photos of bears with their cubs).

Some people will be the examples from which others will learn.

 

[cbg]

Whether they are required by regulation or not, the fact that they are necessary is what I am decrying. The older I get, the less sympathy I have for the fools who are incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions and demand that someone else be made to pay for their own mistake.

It's a shame what happened to the OP. But he's the one who crossed the barrier and dived into water he already knew was shallow. He can complain all he wants that no one SAID there was no diving allowed - they shouldn't have had to tell him. The fact that there was a barrier should have been enough to tell him that he was not allowed back there. He seems to think that if he gets hurt badly enough, the legal liability somehow shifts and he gets a pass on his own stupidity. That's not how the law works.