A Diving Safety Oversight?
It has recently been brought to my attention that an incident occurred in California where a diver landed on a swimmer. At the time this incident occurred, I had finished my own research and was in the process of finding other ways to get that information out to as many people as possible. The actual settlement of the above situation occurred in 2003. I must apologize for what looks to be an over sight and wish to thank the individual that brought this case to my attention.
People in US Diving knew of this case and they fought hard to avoid a court decision which would include them in the final judgement. I was not aware of this case until a recent e-mail. Why would US Diving want to keep this quiet? It would appear that they are hoping to hide this incident and that doesn’t bode well for an agency that keeps its own statistics on diving safety. I am responding to this case and wish to use it as a learning tool. I definitely think that those of us involved with diving should be aware and make sure that it doesn’t happen to us. If our safety history is any indication of the future, this incident could haunt us for years to come just as shallow water incidents have done. From that perspective it is worth discussing openly and not have to deal with untruths that may surface later.
This case seems to demonstrate a common practice in many pools that are multi/simultaneous use facilities. That means, pools are being shared by two or more activities at the same time. When facilities are being shared, safety should be of the utmost concern. Are the activities sharing the pool compatible? Swimming and diving in the same area are not compatible unless certain precautions are followed. In this case a local diving team and synchronized swimming team were sharing the diving pool. For 17 years a lane line marked the boundary separating the two activities. A diver landing on a swimmer would be the "worst case" scenario in this situation and that’s exactly what happened. The diver suffered instant quadriplegia. On that day the lane line was not in use.
I consider this type of accident rare because of its lack of frequency. Most recreational divers will face the landing area and should see outside movement into the landing area. Competitive divers will have their back to the landing area on certain dives. An article on my web site, "Diver Safety" written prior to 12/3/2000 (the date it was posted on the site), describes certain precautions that should be used anytime a diver wishes to use a diving board. One of them was to make sure that the landing area is clear before diving. That means not only looking out for people swimming in the area but also things that float (kick boards, inner tubes etc) and submerged objects (chairs, umbrellas etc) where the diver could be impaled. The basis of that statement was obviously for the safety of the diver.
As the user of the facility I feel that a diver must be aware of all possible dangers in and around the landing area. Divers must make sure the landing area is clear and safe before diving. If they are doing a dive where their back is facing the landing area then they must rely on someone else’s judgement, which could be another diver, the lifeguard or a coach. If that person is unreliable then that diver shouldn’t go off backward. Also if the diver feels they will not land in the deepest part of the pool then they should not dive. All of these precautions are not new but do involve the use of some common sense.
I am not exactly sure how this incident will be classified. It certainly is a diving accident from the use of a diving board. The equipment did not fail. The injury did not involve hitting the pool bottom as many in residential/apartment complex pools do. It did not involve any depth issues or special facility factors. The individual was familiar with the pool and its activity schedule and was there in the capacity of a substitute coach. The incident did not occur during recreational swim hours. It was relative to a local diving program but was not a competitive diving incident. In my opinion, it would be a peripheral diving accident, which would not fall under any existing categories other than being a "diving accident".
This is the first case of a catastrophic diving injury that was sustained in a municipal swimming pool and related to competitive diving. It is the first of its kind since the introduction of diving to the Olympic Games some 100 years ago. The court’s decision was to hold the community 60% responsible, and 40% equally split between the synchronized swimming team and the local diving team. The injured diver bore no responsibility whatsoever in this case. It is our duty as diving enthusiasts to ensure incidents like this never happen again. This includes divers, parents, lifeguards as well as pool owner/operators. Pool owners/operators should take note because they will be held responsible anytime and incident like this occurs whether it is during recreational swim hours or when other activities use the facility outside those hours.