SCUBA lawsuits against manufacturers

[The Goat Show]

I'm a law school student doing a paper on the liability of SCUBA equipment manufacturers. I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of any cases or articles on this subject that would be of any help.
Thanks
The Goat Show

[Stirling]

The only case I have handy involving a claim against a manufacturer (as opposed to dive operators, captains of vessels, etc.) is Thornton v. Sea Quest, 999 F. Supp. 1219 (N.D. Ind. 1998), which is principally concerned with a choice of law issue - as I recall (because I didn't bother to go back and actually read the case just now), Indiana limited damages to pecuniary losses in a situation where Florida would allow other damages, so the family of the deceased diver was arguing for the application of Florida law.

But if you are going to look into claims against manufacturers, I assume you will be interested in product liability issues and the question of whether SCUBA diving is a dangerous activity may come up. I thought this statistic was sufficiently interesting to keep a record of it:

The risk of power-boating compared even more favorably to “other recreational activities, with 0.88 in hunting, 1.41 in high school and college football games, 3.08 in scuba diving and 17.34 in private flying.”

(Those numbers represent the “estimated number of fatalities” per “each million activity hours.”) That is from the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC), Report of the Propeller Guard Subcommittee (1989). They decided that propeller guards weren't required, because propellers didn't kill very many people. I don't know if they counted divers killed by propellers as SCUBA fatalities or boating fatalities, or both, but the risk from all causes for open motorboats was only 0.14, "within which the risk of propeller strike itself is a very small fraction."

[dbg40]

LAWSUITS.......... William Shakespere had it right. come on back I have big shoulders.

[mike_s]

The only case I have handy involving a claim against a manufacturer (as opposed to dive operators, captains of vessels, etc.) is Thornton v. Sea Quest, 999 F. Supp. 1219 (N.D. Ind. 1998), which is principally concerned with a choice of law issue - as I recall (because I didn't bother to go back and actually read the case just now), Indiana limited damages to pecuniary losses in a situation where Florida would allow other damages, so the family of the deceased diver was arguing for the application of Florida law.


Yep. They sued in Florida for that reason.

It was even noted on this professors final law exam.

https://www3.nd.edu/~ndlaw/exams/bauer/Conflict%20of%20Laws/Conflict_of_Laws_Spring_1999.html

[H2Andy]

i don't know of any cases on point, but here are some issues you might want
to read into:

1. is scuba diving considered an "inherently dangerous" activity? if so, can
the manufacturer claim "assumption of risk" on the part of the buyer?
are there any other legal consequences from being a manufactuer
of products designed for an "inherently dangerous" activity?

2. how far does a limited warranty protect a scuba manufacturer? are
scuba products warranted against "all" failures? "some" failures only?

3. does acceptance of a limited warranty act as a "waiver" in case of
injury as to the manufacturer?

4. what are the elements of a cause of action for a products liability action?
would they apply to scuba gear? why? why not?

5. could there be a strict liability action against a scuba products manufacturer?
why or why not?

(hate to sound like a prof. sorry :D)

[The Goat Show]

Hey Stirling,
Thanks for the stats on recreational accidents. I have that Thornton case already and you are correct, it is a more of a choice of law case than a products liability case.
The other cases I already have are:
- Sinclair v Soniform, 935 F.2d 599 (BC case)
- Schwarze v Divers Supply, 2002-Ohio-3945 (Regulator Case)

If you have any others that you come across later on I'd appreciate if you could pass them along.
Thanks

[Capt. Morgan]

I'm a law school student doing a paper on the liability of SCUBA equipment manufacturers. I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of any cases or articles on this subject that would be of any help.
Thanks
The Goat Show

Goat Show: As a lawyer (graduate 2000) I suggest that you do a westlaw/lexis seach on product liabilty and scuba to get all the cases out there. As a law student you have westlaw/lexis for free. So, use the heck out of it while you can (unless your a 1L and they don't let you use it yet like they did our class; if so, make friends with a 2nd or 3rd year)! Westlaw/Lexis will charge you an arm and a leg for the service once you graduate so get the most out of it now. I would do a search now but I am at home and my office is where I can access it.

For your paper, I'd look at other assumption of risk activities against manufacturers like parachuting, hang gliding, flying, skiing, etc. As secondary authority for Scuba.

There is a REALLY knowledgeable attorney that participates on this board. I think his handle is Azatty (something to the effect of Arizona Attorney) he is very, very informative and very bright from my reads of his posts. Also, there is a recent tragedy involving a tank explosion in Florida. It was a Lexur tank if I am correct. I'd look into that case; there will be no decision but if you do your homework and findout the attorneys involved you can get the pleadings to the case simply by contacting them or the courthouse where the case is filed. Lexur has also had some issues with pre 1990 tanks; I don't know the full details so I am reluctant to call it a recall but what I believe happened is that if you sent them your old tank they would send you a $50 credit to the purchase of a new one. That company might fit right in with your paper.

Hopefully, this post was some help. Let me know if I can do anything to do to help. If you are shy about getting the pleadings let me know and I will help you.

Not very often would I dare speak for others on this board, but, I am quite sure that many of us would be interested in your paper if you would like to share it with us. Please do a search for Azatty and read some of his posts; he might be a lot of benefit to you since he knows a lot in the area of scuba and tort law.

Remember about law school: 1st year they scare you to death; 2nd year they work you to death; and 3rd they bore you to death.

And, promise you won't be a sleazy defense counsel lawyer nor a sleazy frivilous plantiff's lawyer. Be a decent lawyer that defys the sterotypical lawyer and you'll have a good practice. Both sides need good people. Best Wishes to you.

[Chuck Tribolet]

If you are going to research the tank cases, it's Luxfer, not Lexur. And you can Google
up some info on their website.


Chuck

[Nemrod]

Why help a lawyer who may not be a student sue dive equipment companies so that everything you buy will be foreign made and super expensive--enough with lawyers--off with all their heads! N

[wrongkey]

I think you'd have a more interesting paper if you researched the restraint of trade issues, which affect all of us.

[dive]

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.

[The Goat Show]

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.

[michaelp68]

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

[H2Andy]

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:

[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

[scubasean]

"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...

[wrongkey]

"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?

[garyfotodiver]

By the way, ever heard of the Ford Pinto?

Yeah, good auto. Economical, quick, comfortable. Ford just built some with one fastener too few.

[H2Andy]

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

[H2Andy]

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!!

[miketsp]

I'd be curious to know what happened to this case:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/MN309974.DTL

[JS1scuba]

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?


The Case of Graham Vs. Abysmal Diving Inc. was a sham from the outset.

A 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 the Plantiff 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.

The Plantiff had a history of "blowing off" decompression stops whenever he felt like it. He did the exact same clown act during his trimix course. It was almost comical to read the accident report from an incident 2 years prior to the incident where he alleged product defect. If you didnt look at the dates they could have been the same documents.

The plantiff admits during deposition and during the trial that he "made mistakes" that it was "his fault" that he "knew he had screwed up'"

He was an airtraffic controller who workd part time at a dive shop to get gear at a discount. He testifies that he was a "trained regulator technician" and then admits that "he never read the manual" it got funny.

Nevertheless, it cost Abysmal Diving Inc. and Kirby Morgan a huge amount of money to defend this frivious case. So much so that it was contributory to putting Abyss out of business.

Divers need to accept responsiblity for thier actions. But we know they wont so we as manufacturers, distributors and retailers have to insulate ourselves as much as possible so that when we get sued we can at least be able to keep some of what we have. My ex partner pretty much lost everything when he put Abyss in to Chapter 7.

The Plantiff's laywer did work contingentcy basis. Frankly the fact that he lost was just wonderful. The scumsucking maggot he was deserved to lose every cent he spent on this frivilous case. Even though he was a VERY high profile ambulance chaser in Minneapolis he forgot one important thing. Make sure your client is not full of crap. This was a HUGE lawfirm with very deep pockets and the ability to spend like there was no tomorrow. They firmly thought that the fact that they had a client in a wheelchair would assure a victory and a large cash settlement from a jury.

I recall from my days there for depositions the Plantiff's attorney said something off record to the effect of........ " boy i wish this was a little girl and a bus." While we were all very cordial when we were together he knew he was in an area that his expertise was just not sufficient and i belive he knew his client was just a fraud.

They were NOT happy about the verdict.

If you think I am a bit "angry" over this, you bet I am. I spent 4 years building a good company with excellent products only to have this moron waste it. And while it was nice to know that the jury came back with "no neglegence" we do not have a process in this country to slap the crap out of the Plantiff for wasting everyones time and money.

Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason.
And that forces you to defend yourself, and start spending money.
And in our case, it was LOTS of money.

Regards,

Joel Silverstein, used to be with Abyss.

[The Goat Show]

I'd be curious to know what happened to this case:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/MN309974.DTL

So far I have not been able to find any court records of this; which leads me to believe that they settled out of court. If I find anything I'll write back...

[H2Andy]

i did some google searching and couldn't find a result for the trial. i suspect the
case might have settled.

all i can find is that Uwatec did a recall, and trial was set for November, 2003:

http://www.undercurrent.org/UCnow/articles/Aladin200304.shtml

the recall is the best thing that could possibly have happened for divers, and
it came about only because of the law suit.

[H2Andy]

Joel Silverstein, used to be with Abyss.

this sounds like the worst type of money-hungry lawyering. i'm very sorry you had
to deal with this.


The plantiff admits during deposition and during the trial that he "made mistakes" that it was "his fault" that he "knew he had screwed up'"

i assume the judge denied your Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment?

did your guys try a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings? If so, i guess the
judge denied it. how about a Motion for Directed Verdict? did the judge deny
that too?

see my drift here?

[JS1scuba]

this sounds like the worst type of money-hungry lawyering. i'm very sorry you had
to deal with this.


andy -- it's all part of the game. If your business is making products for people to do "voluntary dangeorus activities" you need to expect that these things will happen.

When we were in the lab our only thoughts were about the performance of the product. When we (the testers) could NOT reproduce the results the plantif claimed we were happy that this was not a product problem. It could only be a user problem.

Ever wonder why there are 6 pages of warnings in the front of a regulator manual and those little STOP and WARNING signs all over them?

Regards,

JDS

[JS1scuba]

this sounds like the worst type of money-hungry lawyering. i'm very sorry you had
to deal with this.



i assume the judge denied your Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment?

did your guys try a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings? If so, i guess the
judge denied it. how about a Motion for Directed Verdict? did the judge deny
that too?

see my drift here?

We ultimatley did a 2 day Summary Trial with two jurys. They both had to come back with no-neglegence and the case was closed. If one came back with neglegence we would have had to do the full blown trial process.

Both jurys came back in under 15 minutes with no-neglegence.

regards,

[H2Andy]

i'm not familiar with a summary trial. sounds like a good thing, though.

basically, as you said, anyone can sue anyone any time. that is one premise
of our system.

the other premise is that cases without merit will either be (a) dismissed as
a matter of law; or (b) kicked out through summary judgment.

unfortnately, more and more judges are very reluctant to do either. when i first
left law school, i worked as a defense attorney for some prestigious businesses
(for example, Cummins Engines, Walmart, Kmart, Raytheon). it was very
frustrating that the judges would not dismiss a case that clearly had no merit.

this reluctance on the judge's part has (i believe) contributed to the trend to
settle cases (it's cheaper to settle than to litigate), since most Defendants know
that the chances of a judge dismissing or granting summary judgment are nil.

i know some judges who call it like they see it. many, however, just won't make
a hard call. they instead punt to the jury, but that means a long, drawn-out,
and expensive fight for the Defendant.

this, of course, is just my view.

[scubasean]

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!!

Dude...It was said in jest...

I'm one of you. :)

[H2Andy]

oh...ok then....

...nevermind....

:D

(but you know, personal injury lawyers tend to be looked down upon by
other laywers... so... i know some good ones)

[scubapro50]

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.

[H2Andy]

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.


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.

[The Goat Show]

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.

[Stirling]

*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.

[Ben Davison]

I'd be curious to know what happened to this case:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/MN309974.DTL


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]

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)

[caveseeker7]

Concannon LLC (http://www.davidconcannon.com/pages/3/index.htm) 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.

[Otter]

LAWSUITS.......... William Shakespere had it right. come on back I have big shoulders.

I believe that the line you refer to was uttered while they were planning an overthrow....