Normal people should have reasonably foreseen that lawyers would behave as they do.
Wes Skiles' Widow Looking For 25 Million from Lamartek
- Thread starter tekkydiver
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I wish I could "like" that a dozen times, oya.
There are times I am so glad I live in New Zealand. 'Reasonable' seems to be entirely more reasonable in this part of the world.
Some cases in the US are entertaining eg Woman sues restaurant for injuries sustained when she slipped over due to a drink she spilled... But this one is just sad.
Some cases in the US are entertaining eg Woman sues restaurant for injuries sustained when she slipped over due to a drink she spilled... But this one is just sad.
What certainly will be interesting is trying to explain the complexities of rebreather diving to a jury. What are the statistical odds that there will be a rebreather diver on a Florida jury? Probably a few OC divers to be sure...
I realize there is one case but there seems to be too different issues.
1. Diving a unit they were not trained on without bailout. I had to laugh at the previous post about rebreathers requiring constant attention. The diver in question was a photographer. I highly doubt they can give it constant attention.
2. Is the manufacturer not exercising good enough manufacturing and quality control and are they allowing a number of defective parts out there? Just like divers can loose perspective so can companies. They become obsessed with staying in business and avoiding bad press. We can give hundreds of examples of companies that continued to put out defective products and bandaid problems. No idea about this particular case but it is an important one for divers to have it resolved.
1. Diving a unit they were not trained on without bailout. I had to laugh at the previous post about rebreathers requiring constant attention. The diver in question was a photographer. I highly doubt they can give it constant attention.
2. Is the manufacturer not exercising good enough manufacturing and quality control and are they allowing a number of defective parts out there? Just like divers can loose perspective so can companies. They become obsessed with staying in business and avoiding bad press. We can give hundreds of examples of companies that continued to put out defective products and bandaid problems. No idea about this particular case but it is an important one for divers to have it resolved.
Seeing as how Dive Rite is the manufacturer named in the suit, it doesn't take Captain Obvious to come to that conclusion.
Leadking
Contributor
It would be interesting to see if properly done pre-checks (pre-breathing, vacuum, etc) would have identified any defects in the unit. Years ago, I attended a talk by the USN EDU, where they claimed they had never seen a catastrophic failure of a rebreather. Further, was a proper forensic study, by a qualified neutral party done?
Standing by.
Standing by.
"Probably a few"? Really? "Possibly" maybe. Even that is a stretch. Defense or Plaintiff's attorneys will PROBABLY use peremptory challenges to DUMP them so ZERO is the most likely "possibility "here.
Similar threads
