No parts returned on annual overhaul

[KeithG]

Dishonesty can be an issue, but you may also have to deal with stupidity.

the first stage on my Sherwood reg stopped "leaking air" so I took it in for service. After servicing I asked about the first stage and was told by the service tech that regs are not supposed to leak. And they refused to believe my assertion that it was designed that way. I no longer trust that shop.

Having the parts may help to identify laziness or incompetence in some (small set?) of cases. The tech may not think it is required to replace some part. So they don't. In that case the new unused part should be provided to the client as the client paid for it.

 

[Divenomad]

And yet, a flood in your bathroom is not likely to end in a lawsuit over liability in your death. It is very frequent in the event a diver dies.

Having done quite a bit of regulator repair and quite a bit of plumbing, I can confidently say that reg repair is neither more complex nor does it require more skill. Plumbers are trained and licensed, and it takes a lot of time to get a professional license. Regulator repairman can get 'certified' in a weekend with no other pre-qualifications than their employment at a dealer.

And yet, when I go to the plumber supply shop to buy fittings for a gas or a water supply line, I never get any BS about how I can't be sold these parts because of 'liability' or 'danger' from doing it myself.

---------- Post added December 15th, 2013 at 09:46 AM ----------

---------- Post added December 15th, 2013 at 09:50 AM ----------

Yep, seen that too, from another side of the industry. Goes back to not knowing what you don't know.

Dishonesty can be an issue, but you may also have to deal with stupidity.

the first stage on my Sherwood reg stopped "leaking air" so I took it in for service. After servicing I asked about the first stage and was told by the service tech that regs are not supposed to leak. And they refused to believe my assertion that it was designed that way. I no longer trust that shop.

Having the parts may help to identify laziness or incompetence in some (small set?) of cases. The tech may not think it is required to replace some part. So they don't. In that case the new unused part should be provided to the client as the client paid for it.

 

[redacted]

And yet, a flood in your bathroom is not likely to end in a lawsuit over liability in your death. It is very frequent in the event a diver dies.

Originally Posted by halocline
Having done quite a bit of regulator repair and quite a bit of plumbing, I can confidently say that reg repair is neither more complex nor does it require more skill. Plumbers are trained and licensed, and it takes a lot of time to get a professional license. Regulator repairman can get 'certified' in a weekend with no other pre-qualifications than their employment at a dealer.

And yet, when I go to the plumber supply shop to buy fittings for a gas or a water supply line, I never get any BS about how I can't be sold these parts because of 'liability' or 'danger' from doing it myself.

Did you overlook the gas line fittings part of Halocline's post?

Could you provide any data to support your claim of "very frequent" lawsuits in the event of a scuba diver death?

 

[Wookie]

Could you provide any data to support your claim of "very frequent" lawsuits in the event of a scuba diver death?

Because most actions result in settlements, I wouldn't think that a statistic would be readily available. A statistic that would be readily available would be when someone does sue, how often do they sue the equipment manufacturer or the dive shop who gave training sold the gear, or serviced the gear. Because of the way civil lawsuits take place, the plaintiff's lawyer has to sue everyone, because the defendants lawyer will certainly try to blame everyone but the defendant. The judge has to release parties one by one. Lets say that the plaintiff was hit by the propeller. The defendant's lawyer will argue that the plaintiff was holding a speargun and it got wrapped in the propeller, resulting in a propeller strike, so it wasn't the boat driver's fault. If the speargun company is named in the suit, they will defend themselves. If not, the judge can find that the speargun company is mostly or fully at fault, therefore there is no judgement for the plaintiff. If the plaintiff then sues the speargun company, they will argue that the propeller shouldn't have been in gear with diver's under the boat. That's why everyone gets sued at once.

I would say that a very high percentage of diver deaths that do result in a lawsuit will include the last person who touched the equipment.

 

[lionfish-eater]

Having been screwed over by a regulator service technician, I do have some trust issues that I think are justifiable. But I also recognize that there is a strange difference between scuba maintenance work and work done in other areas of service.

I mentioned this in another thread. I recently replaced a toilet. I have done it before and know how, but I hate plumbing. I figured if someone would do it for a reasonable cost, I'd let them. We called the major plumbing shops in the area, and found that they all charged about $175 per hour, and it would take about 1.5 hours--about $260. My son also replaced a toilet, and found someone willing to install it for a flat $1,000. We both did our own work, and I thus got the equivalent of the highest hourly pay rate of my life.

There is no skill at all involved in installing a toilet. Someone with no plumbing experience whatsoever can follow the directions and do it in nearly the same time as a trained plumber, yet people are obviously willing to pay someone $175 per hour to do it. The public in general must think that is a fair price, or else it would not be the standard in our area.

Can you imagine if a regulator technician were to charge $175 per hour for work that is far more complex and requires far more skill?

Until about two weeks later when you start to see a brown stain on the ceiling below from the small leak that you missed. Then the 175 is nothing compared to the cost of ceiling repair. Or if you overtighten and crack the fixture. Or if you didn't realize that the bowl needed to be shimmed due to uneven tiles and it breaks the wax seal when someone heavy sits on it. Burst supply tube that ruins all the hardwood floors and the dining room table below.etc.. It looks easy when everything goes smoothly. The company is probably not even sending out a master plumber for a routine toilet replacement. Transfer of liability is what you are paying for.

 

[redacted]

Because most actions result in settlements, I wouldn't think that a statistic would be readily available. A statistic that would be readily available would be when someone does sue, how often do they sue the equipment manufacturer or the dive shop who gave training sold the gear, or serviced the gear. Because of the way civil lawsuits take place, the plaintiff's lawyer has to sue everyone, because the defendants lawyer will certainly try to blame everyone but the defendant. The judge has to release parties one by one. Lets say that the plaintiff was hit by the propeller. The defendant's lawyer will argue that the plaintiff was holding a speargun and it got wrapped in the propeller, resulting in a propeller strike, so it wasn't the boat driver's fault. If the speargun company is named in the suit, they will defend themselves. If not, the judge can find that the speargun company is mostly or fully at fault, therefore there is no judgement for the plaintiff. If the plaintiff then sues the speargun company, they will argue that the propeller shouldn't have been in gear with diver's under the boat. That's why everyone gets sued at once.

I would say that a very high percentage of diver deaths that do result in a lawsuit will include the last person who touched the equipment.

Yes, I think I understand the problem with getting direct statistics. Does that mean that folks who do the chicken little lawsuit cry don't know either and are just blowing smoke?

 

[Divenomad]

Been sued myself as a shotgun defendant, five times in five years. Never had to go to court myself because of documentation and proper procedures. I never had to settle, almost every other defendant had to pay something, a percentage of the deal. I did not. In addition, I was sued ( and never had to go to court) because a diver completely unrelated to my class died of natural causes about 25 yards from my class in the water. I followed proper procedures and written policies and the case against me was dismissed with prejudice for lack of evidence. Opposing attorneys position was that i was a dive professional, diver died near me= partly my fault. I could prove, in a court of law, I had no liability because I "followed the rules" and could document it.

I did nothing wrong in any of these cases, in fact I did everything right, and I still had to defend myself, and I still had to pay for that. My statistics are entirely personal. Six for six. Please forgive me for protecting myself from liability that does not lie with me.

As to the question about natural gas fittings, I simply did not know.I thought it a good question. So I contacted a plumber, and an engineer who designs scuba regulators for a living and a litigation attorney .The plumber happens to be a volunteer firefighter and public rescue diver. When asked the question, they stared at me like i was stupid. They gave identical answers. You don't run natural gas at 3500 PSI, or anything near that pressure. In retrospect, it makes sense. Ever see a port plug blow out of a regulator? I have, It passed through two walls an embedded in a third. The answer is high pressures of any gas are far more of a risk than low pressure natural gas fittings.

In full disclosure, I was charged three places on my couch, beer, snacks and pizza and the use of my tv to watch a football game. So, one more thing I learned. always a good thing.