PADI 5-Star Water World sued for selling toxic scuba tank air

[H2Andy]

To say that the plaintiff is at fault because the air was obviously "malodorous" is a pretty dangerous trial strategy. It amounts to saying "we screwed up so badly he should have noticed it right away - that air really smelled bad, so he couldn't have missed it."

no kidding...


thanks for the cite

 

[pilot fish]

" The air we sold Mr. Hanselman was extremely malodorous," said Katzenmeyer. "It should have been smelled before he made a dive. We always tell people to smell their air before using it. Experienced divers always do that. If John [Hanselman] had smelled his air, he wouldn't have had a problem."

Does "extremely malodorous" sound like the self incriminating phrase he would have used? Wouldn't he have said, smelled bad or smelly instead of malordorous? I also think the word *If* might have been omitted, if the quote is correct. Plaintiff plant?

 

[michaelp68]

Do you folks know whether the victim's lawsuit is actually based in negligence or product liability?

In Connecticut, the comparative negligence rules for the two are different. So even if NC is a contributory negligence state for negligence claims, it may be different for product liability claims.

Michael

 

[H2Andy]

Do you folks know whether the victim's lawsuit is actually based in negligence or product liability?

well... it may be both... if it's against the dive operator, it's probably neglience.

if they bring in the manufacturer of the compressor, alleging some defect in it
that produced the air, it'd probably be product liability.

 

[michaelp68]

well... it may be both... if it's against the dive operator, it's probably neglience.

if they bring in the manufacturer of the compressor, alleging some defect in it
that produced the air, it'd probably be product liability.

I don't know product liability law in NC.

But in Connecticut, if the dive operator sold defective air, then the dive operator may be sued for product liability.

Product liability claims are not limited, in Connecticut, to actions against the product manufacturers. They may be brought against anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells the defective product.

Michael

 

[H2Andy]

Product liability claims are not limited, in Connecticut, to actions against the product manufacturers. They may be brought against anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells the defective product.

that's what we in Florida call "strict product liability" and it only applies to unresonably
dangerous products. From a textbook: a product is unreasonably dangerous if the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer or if the risk of danger in the design of the product outweighs the benefits.

in that case, manufacturer, distributers, and sellers are strictly liable.


however, in Florida, regular product liability (i.e. not strict liability) focuses on the
product itself, and on whether there are design defects, manufacturing defects and marketing defects in the product. the manufacturer's negligence is not an
issue (sometimes this is called liability without fault). in other words, the manufacturer
doesn't have to have done anything wrong. if a product with a defect hurts a
consumer, the manufacturer is liable.

finally, there's negligence. this is a different theory of recovery and it focuses on
the actions of the parties involved (and not on the product).

plaintiffs usually bring several theories of recovery, if they are supported by
the evidence (and sometimes when they aren't)

 

[michaelp68]

that's what we in Florida call "strict product liability" and it only applies to unresonably
dangerous products. From a textbook: a product is unreasonably dangerous if the product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer or if the risk of danger in the design of the product outweighs the benefits.

in that case, manufacturer, distributers, and sellers are strictly liable.


however, in Florida, regular product liability (i.e. not strict liability) focuses on the
product itself, and on whether there are design defects, manufacturing defects and marketing defects in the product. the manufacturer's negligence is not an
issue (sometimes this is called liability without fault). in other words, the manufacturer
doesn't have to have done anything wrong. if a product with a defect hurts a
consumer, the manufacturer is liable.

finally, there's negligence. this is a different theory of recovery and it focuses on
the actions of the parties involved (and not on the product).

plaintiffs usually bring several theories of recovery, if they are supported by
the evidence (and sometimes when they aren't)

Hmmm, here, product liability is strict liability. The liability attaches to whoever manufactures, distributes or sells a product that is defective, or unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.

Your two descriptions of Florida product liability are all basically covered in the Connecticut product liability statutes.

The Connecticut product liability statutes are an exclusive remedy. So, there would not be an accompanying negligence claim.

Michael

 

[KrisB]

I don't think it was mentioned, at least not directly, but the issue of product liability seems to apply.

The dive shop was "manufacturing" compressed air for scuba use. The compressor was merely a tool on the assembly line.

 

[TeddyDiver]

Carbon monoxide is odorless.

Quite right! Sounds more like the victim or someone else had made some self maintenance with not proper means...
Just makes me wonder..

 

[pilot fish]

I don't think it was mentioned, at least not directly, but the issue of product liability seems to apply.

The dive shop was "manufacturing" compressed air for scuba use. The compressor was merely a tool on the assembly line.

Product liability would not apply if the product was not used properly or for its intended purpose, as they will argue. Let's say the compressor was placed too close to a car garage when the manufacturer specifically warns against this.

Has it been determined that NC law will apply, or will they apply FL law?