scubapro50
Contributor
I started a thread awhile back asking "diving lawyers" to comment on a warranty issue with Dacor ........ www.scubaboard.com/t70907-.html ....... you might want to look at.
SCUBA lawsuits against manufacturers
- Thread starter The Goat Show
- Start date
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
H2Andy
Contributor
scubapro50:
as was suggested in that thread, you need to look at the written warranty and
its language. i am sure there is something in there covering the eventuality
of the product line being discontinued.
the basic Federal warranty law is the Magnuson-Moss Act. Here's a quick
read up on it:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.htm
most states have State warranty acts, that follow (though sometimes not exactly)
the Federal law.
the place to start is your written warranty. without knowing its terms, it's hard
to assist you.
OP
The Goat Show
Registered
scubasean:Dude...It was said in jest...
I'm one of you.
haha - I like that we have people fired up here - even though this was a misundertanding.
*If* the facts of the Uwatec Aladin dive computer case are accurately described in the article posted earlier, that suggests one of the most egregious cases of manufacturer misconduct I could imagine. To design a nitrox computer using software that assumes you are breathing nitrox during your surface intervals (?!), deny that there is a defect after it has been brought to your attention (so people go on using the product), and then issue a recall notice that says the product may malfunction in "extreme and rare" circumstances (like coming to the surface and breathing air?!) is almost unbelievable. (I only say "almost" because I have seen a lot of other really outrageous conduct over the years, so it's hard to feel surprised any more. I am beginning to think that this word "unbelievable" doesn't mean what I thought before.)
If those aren't the true facts, maybe there is another explanation for what happened.
I am a lawyer, but don't do any personal injury or wrongful death litigation (I did some product liability *defense* work involving claims of purely economic losses years ago, but no more). I do a lot of plaintiff's contingency fee work, but in the area of financial and accounting fraud and related business torts. The Abysmal case illustrates a serious problem with the legal system - it is too damned expensive for everybody, so even a lousy case with no real chance of winning can impose an enormous financial burden on the parties. It actually cuts both ways, because good plaintiff's lawyers will turn away smaller cases with merit because they can't afford to litigate them, so some deserving plaintiffs who have actually been injured by somebody else can't get the help they really need, and because defendants in some industries (especially smaller and more specialized industries devoted to higher risk activities like diving and climbing) can't spread the costs of defending lawsuits over a very large customer or revenue base, and the costs can sometimes be ruinous.
On edit: By the way, a "summary jury trial" is usually a form of ADR in which the facts of the case are presented in a summary fashion to a "mock" jury - outside the regular court system - and the verdict is used as a guide / wakeup call to the parties and their lawyers about whether the case has any merit, and what its reasonable settlement value might be. In some places by local rule, procedures like this can be incorporated into the court's own practice as a form of pretrial settlement device, but generally it is done by agreement of the parties and paid for by them. Two jury panels hearing the same evidence act as another check on the reliability of a single panel's assessment of the evidence and arguments. If both panels agree that your case (or defense) stinks, you probably ought to be listening to them.
If those aren't the true facts, maybe there is another explanation for what happened.
I am a lawyer, but don't do any personal injury or wrongful death litigation (I did some product liability *defense* work involving claims of purely economic losses years ago, but no more). I do a lot of plaintiff's contingency fee work, but in the area of financial and accounting fraud and related business torts. The Abysmal case illustrates a serious problem with the legal system - it is too damned expensive for everybody, so even a lousy case with no real chance of winning can impose an enormous financial burden on the parties. It actually cuts both ways, because good plaintiff's lawyers will turn away smaller cases with merit because they can't afford to litigate them, so some deserving plaintiffs who have actually been injured by somebody else can't get the help they really need, and because defendants in some industries (especially smaller and more specialized industries devoted to higher risk activities like diving and climbing) can't spread the costs of defending lawsuits over a very large customer or revenue base, and the costs can sometimes be ruinous.
On edit: By the way, a "summary jury trial" is usually a form of ADR in which the facts of the case are presented in a summary fashion to a "mock" jury - outside the regular court system - and the verdict is used as a guide / wakeup call to the parties and their lawyers about whether the case has any merit, and what its reasonable settlement value might be. In some places by local rule, procedures like this can be incorporated into the court's own practice as a form of pretrial settlement device, but generally it is done by agreement of the parties and paid for by them. Two jury panels hearing the same evidence act as another check on the reliability of a single panel's assessment of the evidence and arguments. If both panels agree that your case (or defense) stinks, you probably ought to be listening to them.
Ben Davison
Registered
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 53
miketsp:
We're going to follow up on our previous reporting of this and carry an article in the May issue. Essentially, it's been settled
Minkey
Guest
PM me if you want the full docket sheet for Raimo v. UWATEC et al, filed in the USDC N.D. CA under 4:03-cv-00513-WDB. The last four filings indicate a settlement and dismissal with a lien assignment:
02/08/2005 312 Letter from Stephen L. Hewitt. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2005) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
02/08/2005 313 ORDER Vacating Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates. Signed by Judge Wayne D. Brazil on 02/08/05. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2005) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
02/28/2005 314 Stipulation and ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Wayne D. Brazil on 02/28/05. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2005) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
03/08/2005 315 NOTICE of Satisfaction of Lien by Robert Raimo. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2005) (Entered: 03/08/2005)
02/08/2005 312 Letter from Stephen L. Hewitt. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2005) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
02/08/2005 313 ORDER Vacating Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates. Signed by Judge Wayne D. Brazil on 02/08/05. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2005) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
02/28/2005 314 Stipulation and ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Wayne D. Brazil on 02/28/05. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2005) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
03/08/2005 315 NOTICE of Satisfaction of Lien by Robert Raimo. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2005) (Entered: 03/08/2005)
caveseeker7
Contributor
Concannon LLC are attorneys for the plaintiff, and used to update their website with pre-trial rulings and some of the discovery.
The case was scheduled for trial in February, but reached some agreement with a mediator.
The case was scheduled for trial in February, but reached some agreement with a mediator.
dbg40:
I believe that the line you refer to was uttered while they were planning an overthrow....
Similar threads
