SCUBA lawsuits against manufacturers

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

his is a HIGHLY edited excerpt of the final story of the "Rise and Fall" of Abyss that will be released at some point AFTER all the legal issues are resolved.
=====================================


By the summer of 2001 Abyss had released the Explorer Superflow regulator series to great success. The first marketing of this product was to the existing Abyss customer database with a 4-color post card mailed to dealers and end users. One of the very first sales from that mailing was for a single unit to a dive store in the Mid-West. That’s all that was ordered —one unit. Other dive centers were ordering them 4, 6 and sometimes 10 at a time. For the first time in a very long time tech divers had the opportunity to get a high performance regulator at a reasonable price—under five hundred bucks. It was a steal. While the competitors were selling regulators for $650, $750, even $1,000 the Abyss Explorer Superflow was making great strides as were the other products that Parrett and Silverstein had developed.

The second time bomb began ticking when an incompetent diver purchased a regulator. The Abyss Explorer regulator was manufactured by Kirby Morgan Dive Systems and Poseidon Diving Systems. Both top names in the engineering field for deep water diving equipment. This product outperformed most anything else on the market for deep diving. With test results blowing away competitive products and high performance divers all over the world using this super product Abyss thought they had a winner.

As the legal documents begin to mount they begin to get the real story on the regulator accident. It seems that a highly trained and experienced technical diver in his mid 50s who was a part-timer at a local dive store had purchased one of our regulators in the summer of 2001. He went out with his buddies without a valid dive plan, and attempted to do a 240 foot dive in a cold fresh water lake in the Midwest. During the dive he loses buoyancy control and rockets to the surface like an ICBM. He claims it was the Abyss regulator that caused him to do this. In one deposition he even stated, “ I don’t know, maybe the air coming out around my head jetted me to the surface.” They tried to let the lawyers deal with all of this, they had business to tend to.

By March 2003 it was clear that the regulator problem had not gone away. A new lawsuit was filed against Abysmal Diving Inc. claiming the Explorer Superflow regulator was the cause of this diver suddenly racing to the surface and ultimately getting decompression sickness so severe he had major complications that altered his lifestyle. Now comes the fun. Armed with the best legal team the business has to offer Abyss heads to a test facility to try and reproduce what the plaintiff claims the product did to him. After months of exhaustive testing, the results are clear. There is just nothing wrong with the product itself, but only with the user. Days of interrogatories, depositions from both Parrett, Silverstein, the Plaintiff and stacks upon stacks of documents from expert witnesses costing over $500 an hour show that there is nothing wrong with the product but that the Plaintiff failed to adequately read the instruction manual. Meanwhile Abyss lost its prime regulator product (Kirby Morgan cancelled the OEM agreement), legal fees were mounting by the day, and they had an attorney trying to dig under every corner of the company to find where the money would be to pay his client should he win. Little did they know that any cash Abyss had was already being sucked up by his client’s lawsuit.

All of this leads us to where we are today. Since early February when it was clear that there was no way Abyss would come out of the lawsuit Parrett has been liquidating the company, paying off every vendor as quickly and as equitably as possible. The trial was to start in May. If Abyss showed up at the trial the costs would be staggering, just showing up would cost $50-75k and that’s got nothing to do with winning or losing. Win or Loose, the cost of a long extenede trial would be devastating to the company. The only way to protect the vendors would be to close the company and seek protection under the federal bankruptcy code. That decision was made. As a result the company changed its focus of selling and put everything on the internet and made it available to consumers world wide. BANG! Sales orders shot up through the sky. Orders began pouring in like there was no tomorrow. It was wholesale to the public and the public was eating it up. Parrett just shakes his head in amazement now as to why he did not do it sooner.

If you have read this so far you have an idea as to what these guys have gone though and what toll it has taken on them, the company, the vendors, and the customers. Abysmal Diving Inc. is now closed. All the inventory is gone, all the vendors have been paid every possible cent that could have been paid. The doors are closed, the lights are off, and the corporation no longer exists.
 
wrongkey:
I think you'd have a more interesting paper if you researched the restraint of trade issues, which affect all of us.

There are many other interesting issues related to SCUBA law, however, the focus of this class is products liability. Believe me, it would be much easier to write a paper on another aspect of SCUBA law such as liability release forms, trade law or something like that because there is so much caselaw out there. However, the focus of this project is liability of manufacturers for their products.
 
I'm an attorney who has had a number of product liability cases over the years. Injuries have ranged from relatively minor to rather catastrophic. Products have ranged mundane everyday items to items used in activities that involve inherent dangers.

I am not aware of any caselaw in Connecticut exempting product manufacturers, distributors or sellers from liability due to the product being one whose intended use involves an inherently dangerous activity.

The point of product liability laws, at least in Connecticut, is to protect ultimate users and consumers of products from products manufactured, distributed or sold in an unreasonably dangerous or defective condition.

Defenses to product liability claims include alteration of the product by the user as well as misuse of the product by the user. Also, the user's own comparative negligence in causing any injuries comes into play.

Whether it's scuba gear or some other item, if a product is manufactured, distributed or sold in Connecticut in an unreasonably dangerous or defective condition, there's a case to be made. The includes the realm of scuba products.

The interesting question for your class and your paper is whether products that are supposed to be used in dangerous activities should be exempt from product liability laws. But what should be considered such a dangerous activity? Operating a motor vehicle? Operating a power saw? Or perhaps only dangerous activities that are recreational.

Do you want manufacturers to be insulated when they make boat engines that catch fire during normal use, jet skiis with steering that stops working, scuba tanks that explode, regulators that stop working at recreational depths, ski/snowboard bindings that randomly break, bicycles that collapse with no warning.....?????

It's normal for many people to feel that product liability exposure puts companies out of business, prevents some products from ever making it to the marketplace and raises product costs which are passed to all of us as consumers.

But it's also reasonable to expect, as a consumer, that the products you purchase will NOT be defective, especially if you're going to use them for activities that involve a terrible price to pay if the product fails. It's never more important for the product to be free of defective conditions when the product is used for something with dangers attached to its use.

We all know that products might fail for a whole host of reasons. That's to be expected.

But when I'm scuba diving, mountain biking or snowboarding, I do not want my gear/equipment to start out defective. I want whoever makes those items and products to have incentive to make them competently, free from defects.

Oh well, just some rambling thoughts while my son is napping and I'm grabbing some computer time.

Michael
 
Nemrod:
Why help a lawyer who may not be a student sue dive equipment companies


or help defend them!

there's pesky lawyers on both sides, ya know :wink:
 
"or help defend them!"

The end result is that companies spend huge amounts of money, people loose jobs, buisness goes away, insurance goes up, liers---uh--lawyers get rich----the end.
N
 
Nemrod:
"or help defend them!"

The end result is that companies spend huge amounts of money, people loose jobs, buisness goes away, insurance goes up, liers---uh--lawyers get rich----the end.
N

Yep, and all of this because of the lawyers...None of the folks suing have anything to do with this, any more than the manufacturers who might be producing a faulty product...
 
Nemrod:
"or help defend them!"

The end result is that companies spend huge amounts of money, people loose jobs, buisness goes away, insurance goes up, liers---uh--lawyers get rich----the end.
N

I'd bet the lawyers who were giving Abyss such a hard time had a contingent fee arrangement, were never paid a dime for the hundreds or thousands of hours they spent on the case, and lost every penny they invested in trying to develop it. It wouldn't take many cases like that to land them in bankruptcy court, too. And no, I'm not defending what they did at any stage. From the report, it looks clear that they were scumbags, but we only have one side presented. Your comments, though, are superficial and wrong.

I guess the thought that there might be such a thing as a frivolous defense to a highly meritorious claim has never crossed your mind, has it? I guess it's never occurred to you, either, that a corporate defendant might pursue a defense strategy of making the prosecution of a meritorious claim so burdensome and expensive that it's not economically feasible.

By the way, ever heard of the Ford Pinto?
 
wrongkey:
By the way, ever heard of the Ford Pinto?

Yeah, good auto. Economical, quick, comfortable. Ford just built some with one fastener too few.
 
Nemrod:
The end result is that companies spend huge amounts of money, people loose jobs, buisness goes away, insurance goes up, liers---uh--lawyers get rich----the end.
N

sure, let's get rid of our tort system.

let's let people fight it out amongst themselves when they have problems with
their neighbors. i'm sure that will be a lot less costly to our society in the long
run than lawsuits :D

or better yet, let's make the manufacturers untouchable for the products they
make. hey, if they kill a few hundred thousand people a month, so what?
that's a lot better than the dreaded lawsuits :D
 
scubasean:
None of the folks suing have anything to do with this, any more than the manufacturers who might be producing a faulty product...

wow... you really think this?

i would suggest a visit to the real world one of these days :D

the lawyers didn't manufacture a potentially dangerous product. the lawyers didn't
buy that product. the lawyers didn't die or get hurt using that product. the lawyers
didn't walk into the lawyer's office one day (hey! good to see ya!) and said,
"I got hurt by X, i would like to know if i have a case."

you know, if nobody got hurt, personal injury lawyers would be out of work. and i'd
throw a party!!
 

Back
Top Bottom