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

[michaelp68]

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?

Actually, in your example, it would apply. It would apply in a lawsuit against the seller of the air.

In any potential action by the seller of the air against the manufacturer or distributor of the compressor, what you brought up would certainly become a key issue and a possible defense by the manufacturer or distributor.

However, there would still be a product liability action by the victim against the seller of the air.

Michael

 

[pilot fish]

Actually, in your example, it would apply. It would apply in a lawsuit against the seller of the air.

In any potential action by the seller of the air against the manufacturer or distributor of the compressor, what you brought up would certainly become a key issue and a possible defense by the manufacturer or distributor.

However, there would still be a product liability action by the victim against the seller of the air.

Michael

Hi Mike. If it is a perfect product, no malfunction etc, and contamination is from improper placement of the compressor, or provable improper use, let's say, you do not have a product libaility case, as in my example.

Also, if the injury occured in Florida and the operator does business ONLY in FL,[ the operator does not have any business in NC], you cannot bring this action in NC, nor would you want to.

 

[pilot fish]

]]]]In any potential action by the seller of the air against the manufacturer or distributor of the compressor, what you brought up would certainly become a key issue and a possible defense by the manufacturer or distributor.]]]]]mike

The seller might bring the manufatuere in, saying, they contributed to this injury. The plaintiff will ALSO name manufaturer in the action. Either way the manufacturer will be named but if it's a perfect product, or used improperly, there is not much of a case against them.

 

[michaelp68]

Hi Mike. If it is a perfect product, no malfunction etc, and contamination is from improper placement of the compressor, or provable improper use, let's say, you do not have a product libaility case, as in my example.

Also, if the injury occured in Florida and the operator does business ONLY in FL,[ the operator does not have any business in NC], you cannot bring this action in NC, nor would you want to.

I have brought a number of product liability lawsuits over the years in both state and federal courts for a wide variety of products. So I have a small amount of knowledge about this area.

In this instance, we don't know the real and full story.

But for purposes of our discussion, and applying Connecticut law as an example, the defective product is the contaminated air that was sold. You keep focusing on the defective product as possibly being the compressor. Perhaps it was and perhaps it wasn't. However, the straightforward case is a product liability action against the seller of contaminated air, which was the defective product which injured someone.

The plaintiff will not automatically name the manufacturer of the compressor. That would depend on whether there was a defect with the compressor.

Regarding jurisdictional and venue issues, you are generally correct, but it's also not that clear-cut. Simply by way of example, if a Florida dive operator advertises in Connecticut or solicits business in Connecticut, yet does not actually conduct business here, then the Florida dive operator might be subject to federal court jurisdiction venued here in Connecticut. All I'm saying is that there are a number of potential issues regarding venue and jurisdiction.

Either way, my overall point for posting is just that if a dive operator sold contaminated air, it sounds like a straightforward product liability lawsuit against the dive operator for selling a defective product, unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. In Connecticut, it would not be a negligence lawsuit, but rather, a product liability lawsuit. And the comparative or contributory negligence rules for negligence based lawsuits might be different for a product liability lawsuit in other jurisdictions as they are here in Connecticut.

Michael

 

[pilot fish]

I have brought a number of product liability lawsuits over the years in both state and federal courts for a wide variety of products. So I have a small amount of knowledge about this area.

In this instance, we don't know the real and full story.

But for purposes of our discussion, and applying Connecticut law as an example, the defective product is the contaminated air that was sold. You keep focusing on the defective product as possibly being the compressor. Perhaps it was and perhaps it wasn't. However, the straightforward case is a product liability action against the seller of contaminated air, which was the defective product which injured someone.

The plaintiff will not automatically name the manufacturer of the compressor. That would depend on whether there was a defect with the compressor.

Regarding jurisdictional and venue issues, you are generally correct, but it's also not that clear-cut. Simply by way of example, if a Florida dive operator advertises in Connecticut or solicits business in Connecticut, yet does not actually conduct business here, then the Florida dive operator might be subject to federal court jurisdiction venued here in Connecticut. All I'm saying is that there are a number of potential issues regarding venue and jurisdiction.

Either way, my overall point for posting is just that if a dive operator sold contaminated air, it sounds like a straightforward product liability lawsuit against the dive operator for selling a defective product, unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. In Connecticut, it would not be a negligence lawsuit, but rather, a product liability lawsuit. And the comparative or contributory negligence rules for negligence based lawsuits might be different for a product liability lawsuit in other jurisdictions as they are here in Connecticut.

Michael

As you correctly state, we don't know all the issues, but why would a plaintiff want to bring a product liabilty case in NC, if he could get Fl law? As you doubtless know, a good plaintiff's attorney will name the manufacturer too. Remember he has 3 years?

 

[michaelp68]

As you correctly state, we don't know all the issues, but why would a plaintiff want to bring a product liabilty case in NC, if he could get Fl law? As you doubtless know, a good plaintiff's attorney will name the manufacturer too. Remember he has 3 years?

I'm not arguing that the case should be brought in one state or the other. I don't know all the facts and don't know the law of either state.

As for your thought that a product manufacturer should be named in the lawsuit, what product are you referring to? The compressor? The air in the tank handed to the diver?

If you are referring to the manufacturer of the compressor, like I already said, whether that manufacturer is named in the lawsuit depends on whether the compressor was defective.

As to your blanket statement that the compressor manufacturer would automatically be named in the lawsuit by any good plaintiff's attorney, my only response is that I disagree. I don't know what experience you base that opinion on. My opinion is otherwise and it is based on successfully handling numerous product liability claims.

Michael

 

[pilot fish]

I'm not arguing that the case should be brought in one state or the other. I don't know all the facts and don't know the law of either state.

As for your thought that a product manufacturer should be named in the lawsuit, what product are you referring to? The compressor? The air in the tank handed to the diver?

If you are referring to the manufacturer of the compressor, like I already said, whether that manufacturer is named in the lawsuit depends on whether the compressor was defective.

As to your blanket statement that the compressor manufacturer would automatically be named in the lawsuit by any good plaintiff's attorney, my only response is that I disagree. I don't know what experience you base that opinion on. My opinion is otherwise and it is based on successfully handling numerous product liability claims.

Michael

Counselor, if the air from the compressor is good and becomes contaminated afterwards by seller of the air, it is then negligence.

Just because you advertise in another State, as in a magazine with circulation to all 50 States, does not mean you have jurisdiction in all those States. That is a very weak argument. If that were the case they could bring an action in Alaska. Forget Conn law, NC law, the injury was in FL and operator only does business in FL.

Michael, as you know, you want to name as many people as you can to protect your client, especially if you are on the eve of SOL, as in this case. You can let them out later on.

 

[pilot fish]

Michael, you might want to do a Lexus to see what is best law for that case? Anyway, we are not trying the case here on the SB.

 

[michaelp68]

Counselor, if the air from the compressor is good and becomes contaminated afterwards by seller of the air, it is then negligence.

Just because you advertise in another State, as in a magazine with circulation to all 50 States, does not mean you have jurisdiction in all those States. That is a very weak argument. If that were the case they could bring an action in Alaska. Forget Conn law, NC law, the injury was in FL and operator only does business in FL.

Michael, as you know, you want to name as many people as you can to protect your client, especially if you are on the eve of Statue of L, as in this case. You can let them out later on.

You're wrong with all three of your points, regarding both the law and how you even define the issues.

But I'm not going to argue with you about this since you clearly know better.

Best wishes.

Michael

 

[pilot fish]

You're wrong with all three of your points, regarding both the law and how you even define the issues.

But I'm not going to argue with you about this since you clearly know better.

Best wishes.

Michael

No argument, Mike, just a good natured discussion. Please, how am I wrong ?