Case Study: Examining the Isildar v. Rideau Diving Supply Case

This case study examines the legal aspects of the Isildar v. Rideau Diving Supply case, where a diver, Ali Isildar, died during a night dive. The assignment details the facts of the incident, including the poor visibility and cold water conditions, which contributed to the diver's panic and subsequent removal of his regulator. The case focuses on the instructor's negligence and the liability of Rideau Diving Supply (RDS). The court found the instructor, Sarah Dow, negligent due to her insufficient experience and poor decisions regarding the dive site and her actions during the emergency. The case highlights how a series of poor decisions can lead to tragic outcomes and the importance of instructor competence and site selection in ensuring diver safety. The court’s decision underscores the complexities of determining liability in accidents and the potential impact of a single poor decision. The assignment provides a detailed analysis of the court's reasoning and the implications of the case.

Anatomy of an accident: Isildar v. Rideau Diving Supply
Running Head: Case Study 0
3 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 0
Student’s Name

Case Study 1
Isildar v. Rideau Diving Supply
Facts
To discuss the face of the subjective case this is to state that the family members of the victim
have initiated the claim after his (victim’s death). The victim of the case was a hardware designer
named Ali Isildar. He participated in an advanced open water scuba training program that was
offered to him by Rideau Diving Supply (RDS). On 7 June 2003, RDS arranged a night dive
program where 7 students, 1 assistant, and 2 instructors went to the St. Lawrence River. The
depth of water was 85 feet. In addition to this, the temperature of the water was very cold and the
surface was silty. These details frame the background of the case. The issues started when Isildar
went underwater, the visibility was very poor. During swimming, Isildar lost his way and his
buddy became unable to find him. Later on, when the instructor of Isildar Sarah Dow descended
to find him, she found him in a panic state where Isildar as removed his regulator. When Isildar
pulled from the water he was almost dead and could not respond to CPR. Because of this
incident, Isildar died.
Issue
The issue of the case was to determine the liability and negligence of instructor in the whole
scenario where it was known that the lead cause of Islidar’s death was drowning, the most
specific reason was not known.

Case Study 2
Additional Facts
At the time when Dow found Islidar, his tank had enough air by using that he could reach up to
surface easily but the other conditions such as cold water and the silty surface might not be in his
favor. These conditions have identified as a reason for air starvation. This perception can further
contribute to panic, over relaxation and overbeating.
Court decision
In the decision of the case, Dow was found negligent in her action. Further, RDS also found
negligent where the same arranged an instructor such as Dow for the student, who had very little
expertise, that too in a dive where the risk level was very high. Even though the court has found
clear negligence on the part of the defendant, the company and its staff have been protected
through a clear release of liability.
Reasoning
While making the final decision, the court has considered all the facts and provided its reasoning.
The court found that Dow was negligent in her action in pursuance of deep dive where she had
insufficient experience in it. Further, she should have waited near Islidar until the loss of
consciousness but she pulled him off to surface for help as soon as she found him, which was
poor judgment on the part of an instructor. In conjunction with this, she made poor choices while
selecting the site for dive. She should not have selected St. Lawrence River for night dive due to
dangerous circumstances where she knew that students would be paired with their friends and
she would only be there to instruct.

Case Study 3
Conclusion
The case is an important one to study as the court has made it clear that there can be a number of
reasons behind an accident and while determining the liability of the defendant, a single poor
decision can act as a catalyst.