*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.