Uwatec Aladin Air-X Nitrox Lawsuits

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Reef Fish - 20 Apr 2004 07:44 GMT

For latest summary, go to:

http://www.davidconcannon.com/pages/5/index.htm

and click "Air-X Nitrox Case".

-- Bob.

Reply to this Message

Dillon Pyron - 20 Apr 2004 17:06 GMT

>For latest summary, go to:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>-- Bob.

Regardless of the merits of the case, this is really nothing more than
a self serving bit of propoganda. Since it's a class action suit,
they'll make a ton of money and the actual class members will get next
to squat.

Signature

dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

Reply to this Message

Jason O'Rourke - 20 Apr 2004 19:56 GMT

>>http://www.davidconcannon.com/pages/5/index.htm
>>and click "Air-X Nitrox Case".

>Regardless of the merits of the case, this is really nothing more than
>a self serving bit of propoganda. Since it's a class action suit,
>they'll make a ton of money and the actual class members will get next
>to squat.

You mean Bob's posting of it? Yeah, a bit self serving.

But as to the class action, the point really isn't so much about
recovery as fixing the problem (ie, Uwatec). This case is about
a perfect a justification for class actions as there ever was.
It's also not nearly as profitable a business as you think.

Signature

Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Reply to this Message

Reef Fish - 20 Apr 2004 23:45 GMT

> >>http://www.davidconcannon.com/pages/5/index.htm
> >>and click "Air-X Nitrox Case".
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> a perfect a justification for class actions as there ever was.
> It's also not nearly as profitable a business as you think.

Sorry guys, you're BOTH wrong, DEAD WRONG.

First of all, this is NOT a class action suit. It's a collection of
different suits to be tried together, because much of the evidence
and arguments will be common to all of those INDIVIDUAL suits.

*> This firm represents Robert Raimo, one of four scuba divers
*> suing Johnson Outdoors, Inc. and its diving subsidiaries,
*> Uwatec USA, Inc. and Scubapro, for knowingly concealing a
*> dangerous defect in their flagship product, the Aladin Air X
*> Nitrox dive computer, for more than seven years.

The other three scuba divers have their own INDIVIDUAL suits.
Initially there were FIVE suits. One of them had been settle out
of court. These are the remaining 4.

It was the THREAT of a class-action suit, by David Concannon, that
prompted Uwatec to issue the recall, in 2003, the day after the class
action suit was threatened, but NEVER filed.

(All of this info is in the webpage which you obviously didn't read
or read VERY carelessly)

Self serving? By informing the diving public the DIRTY tricks and
LACK of ethics of Uwatec, now Johnson Outdoors? To let the public
know that dive computer companies (Uwatec in particular) are more
apt to CONCEAL known defects than inform divers of those defects that
may bend them, and 5 of them did get bent using it?

You two have gone beyond the line of NOISE MAKING in these forums.

This is serious business. Serious business about SCUBA, and about
dive computer companies in SCUBA.

If you don't care about it, just ignore it. If you want to read it,
at least read it correctly that this is NOT a class action suit,
that this is a case of extreme, unethical conduct by a well-known
dive computer company!

Above all, this thread does not need your POLLUTION. If pure NOISE
making is all you can do in rec.scuba.*, stick to those with guns,
politics, and dick sizes, and IDIOTs.

-- Bob.

Reply to this Message

Jason O'Rourke - 21 Apr 2004 00:25 GMT

>Self serving? By informing the diving public the DIRTY tricks and
>LACK of ethics of Uwatec, now Johnson Outdoors? To let the public
>know that dive computer companies (Uwatec in particular) are more
>apt to CONCEAL known defects than inform divers of those defects that
>may bend them, and 5 of them did get bent using it?

You've been posting so often about it that I believe rec.scuba is
well aware. I certainly consider the litigation in any form to be
legitimate. Not so much because divers got bent (no guarantees) but
rather because of their inaction in dealing with the problem when it
became known.

I do doubt your intentions in referencing it, you ham.

Signature

Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Reply to this Message

Dillon Pyron - 21 Apr 2004 04:41 GMT

>> >>http://www.davidconcannon.com/pages/5/index.htm
>> >>and click "Air-X Nitrox Case".
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>different suits to be tried together, because much of the evidence
>and arguments will be common to all of those INDIVIDUAL suits.

There are several references to "the class". If it's not a class
action suit, it sounds like he's drumming up business.

>*> This firm represents Robert Raimo, one of four scuba divers
>*> suing Johnson Outdoors, Inc. and its diving subsidiaries,
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
>-- Bob.

Bob, you should be one to talk about pollution. I kill more threads
than I read and am tempted more than half the time to just kf you.

Cite three of my posts that constitue "polluton"

Signature

dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

Reply to this Message

007 - 25 Apr 2004 20:00 GMT

Bob,

It is indeed serious business and often a very lucrative one for attorneys. You well understand even when plaintiffs prevail, little or nothing will ever change on the defendant's part.

Just like RJR, PM, the "Trickle Up Cost of Doing Business" will be passed on in higher consumer prices for dive equipment and liability policies and you can buy that slick new King Air. I point out to people all the time, if your mechanic's cigarettes jumped from <$2.00 to >$4.00 a pack, what do you think he's going to charge you next time for a tune up on your Edsel? He's not likely to quit smoking, just go up on his prices to maintain his standard of living - Trickle Up Cost of Doing Business! It's Exponential People!

On the surface, many of these situations may "Sound" like stellar ideas... In reality though, it is exactly why the cost of everything has skyrocketed since 1950.

The solution once upon a time was -- Caveat Emptor -- but that was long before the insurance extortionists and lawyer populations mushroomed out of control... What were we ever worrying about the nuclear treat for?

I fear the vicious circle of insurance companies and torts are going to pull us down by the heals as predators do their prey....

In the end, will it have been worth it?

Bubba ~~~_/) ~~~
On Apalachee Bay - The Pirate Coast
Home of Billy Bowlegs and Mysterious Waters
Wakulla County, Florida
~Wet Dreams~
Hull 158

jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) wrote in message news:<c63roe$naq$1@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.davidconcannon.com/pages/5/index.htm
> >>and click "Air-X Nitrox Case".
>
> >Regardless of the merits of the case, this is really nothing more than
> >a self serving bit of propoganda. Since it's a class action suit,
> >they'll make a ton of money and the actual class members will get next
> >to squat.
>
> You mean Bob's posting of it? Yeah, a bit self serving.
>
> But as to the class action, the point really isn't so much about
> recovery as fixing the problem (ie, Uwatec). This case is about
> a perfect a justification for class actions as there ever was.
> It's also not nearly as profitable a business as you think.

Sorry guys, you're BOTH wrong, DEAD WRONG.

First of all, this is NOT a class action suit. It's a collection of
different suits to be tried together, because much of the evidence
and arguments will be common to all of those INDIVIDUAL suits.

*> This firm represents Robert Raimo, one of four scuba divers
*> suing Johnson Outdoors, Inc. and its diving subsidiaries,
*> Uwatec USA, Inc. and Scubapro, for knowingly concealing a
*> dangerous defect in their flagship product, the Aladin Air X
*> Nitrox dive computer, for more than seven years.

The other three scuba divers have their own INDIVIDUAL suits.
Initially there were FIVE suits. One of them had been settle out
of court. These are the remaining 4.

It was the THREAT of a class-action suit, by David Concannon, that
prompted Uwatec to issue the recall, in 2003, the day after the class
action suit was threatened, but NEVER filed.

(All of this info is in the webpage which you obviously didn't read
or read VERY carelessly)

Self serving? By informing the diving public the DIRTY tricks and
LACK of ethics of Uwatec, now Johnson Outdoors? To let the public
know that dive computer companies (Uwatec in particular) are more
apt to CONCEAL known defects than inform divers of those defects that
may bend them, and 5 of them did get bent using it?

You two have gone beyond the line of NOISE MAKING in these forums.

This is serious business. Serious business about SCUBA, and about
dive computer companies in SCUBA.

If you don't care about it, just ignore it. If you want to read it,
at least read it correctly that this is NOT a class action suit,
that this is a case of extreme, unethical conduct by a well-known
dive computer company!

Above all, this thread does not need your POLLUTION. If pure NOISE
making is all you can do in rec.scuba.*, stick to those with guns,
politics, and dick sizes, and IDIOTs.

-- Bob

Reply to this Message

Reef Fish - 30 Apr 2004 05:50 GMT

> Bob,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> attorneys. You well understand even when plaintiffs prevail, little or
> nothing will ever change on the defendant's part.

That's unfortunately part of the system of equations in litigation.

>
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> prices to maintain his standard of living - Trickle Up Cost of Doing
> Business! It's Exponential People!

No argument with you here either. But part of the system of equations
is the FREE MARKET principle. One has a choice to boycott those
companies that are unethical in their conduct, as was in the Uwatec
case in question.

The rising cost of Uwatec Air-X Nitrox dive computers could trickle
itself to Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 (bankrupcy), of Uwatec and/or its
subsequent purchaser, to be replaced by better products made by more
ethical companies.

That's a non-negligible SILVER LINING in the pool of sharks and dirty
plays that keeps me voicing MY info and opinion on such matters.

It does NOT ALWAYS involve litigation or money either! Only a matter
of PRINCIPLE, info, and fair play!

Case in Point: Mike Cochran (Nemesis) vs Reef Fish, Plaintiffs against
each other -- openly tried in rec.scuba, in 1995. :-)

Cochran's Nemesis PRO had serious algorithmic DEFECTS -- much worse than
those in Uwatec Air-X Nitrox. I discovered those defects about 3 months
after the computer was introduced -- notified Cochran -- who immediately
ceased its production of it, less than 6 months after the first unit
(mine) had been sold to me.

Meanwhile Cochran and his shills and ad agent started a global INTERNET
campaign against me PERSONALLY, for exposing the defect of the computer.
It involved Nemesis PRO diagnosing a no-deco dive of mine (later
proven so according to simulations by technicians of Uwatec, ORCA,
and other divecomp companies at the time) to be one in which Nemesis
ERRONEOUSLY diagnosed that I had missed 52 minutes of a 55 minute
obligated deco!!!

Incredibly obvious error? Of course. But that was in the early days
of the use of dive computers on multiday-multi-dives-per-day kind of
liveaboard diving -- when Cochran thought he could get on the offensive
to flame his customer (me) for "unsafe practice" and get away with it.

The rest was history that can still be easily retrieved via google.

Cochran and his ad agent made the MAJOR mistake of promising to
simulate that dive profile on their "new, improved" Nemesis line to
show that the Nemesis PRO diagnosis was no error -- OF COURSE they
couldn't deliver, and after MONTHS of public flame war, with all the
drama of a "fake Cochran" posting as Cochran; a former car-salesman
WEThackery who didn't know his posterior from an ice hole in the
ground (where he did the Nemesis ads); to a REAL shill (proven to
be so).

In the end -- Cochran was the LOSER -- on his unethical conduct,
tucked his tail between his legs and quietly disappeared with his
pal -- the WetONE. Many folks to this day avoid his computers and
his company like a plague! Very justifiably so, in my opinion.

> On the surface, many of these situations may "Sound" like stellar
> ideas... In reality though, it is exactly why the cost of everything has
> skyrocketed since 1950.

There is a STRONG parallel in the "concealment" of defects in the Cochran
Nemesis PRO case and the Uwatec Air-X Nitrox case.

The main differences were:

1. No one was bent by the Nemesis PRO, whereas 5 were, by the Air-X Nitrox.

2. Cochran could only flame me, his customer, whereas Uwatec FIRED
its Uwatec/USA National Manager for wanting to issue a recall,
on "framed" evidence of theft, which resulted in Uwatec losing
a lawsuit ($2 million USD awarded by jury) in 1998 for "conspiracy,
slander, and outrage". But the conspiracy and outrage and
DENIAL of defects continued until 2003.

In the present case of FIVE lawsuits (on injuries) against Uwatec,
THREE had been settled out of court (as of now):

Uwatec settled two of the cases late LAST week, Iazdi v. Uwatec and
Esposito v. Uwatec. Iazdi was the second diver injured, Esposito was
the fourth diver injured. Terms of the settlements are confidential.

Bob Raimo's case (the latest) and the case of the first diver injured
are not affected, and remain to be tried.

> I fear the vicious circle of insurance companies and torts are going to
> pull us down by the heals as predators do their prey....

I cited the case of Mike Cochran in his Nemesis PRO. There was NO
insurance company involved; there was NO litigation or lawyers
involved. Money was NEVER the issue. Only one citizen against an
unethical Company and Company President, in an unprecedented case,
tried publicly in this very newsgroup forum -- rec.scuba! :-))

> In the end, will it have been worth it?

I received absolutely no compensation in the Cochran case. I received
and will receive absolutely no compensation in any of the present 5
cases of injured divers vs Uwatec.

To ME, every bit is worth it -- as a matter of PRINCIPLE -- to expose
the companies and personnel for WHAT and WHO they are.

YMMV.

> Bubba ~~~ /) ~~~
> On Apalachee Bay - The Pirate Coast
> Home of Billy Bowlegs and Mysterious Waters
> Wakulla County, Florida
> ~Wet Dreams~
> Hull 158

-- Bob (Reef Fish), aka Feeesh.

Reply to this Message

Dillon Pyron - 30 Apr 2004 18:12 GMT

>> Bob,

<snip>

>In the present case of FIVE lawsuits (on injuries) against Uwatec,
>THREE had been settled out of court (as of now):
>
>Uwatec settled two of the cases late LAST week, Iazdi v. Uwatec and
>Esposito v. Uwatec. Iazdi was the second diver injured, Esposito was
>the fourth diver injured. Terms of the settlements are confidential.

My previous comments not withstanding, this disgusts me. Not the
settlement, but the terms. The company gets to whitewash the whole
thing and, essentially, make it go away. They settle with "no
addmission of guilt or wrongdoing" and nobody knows exactly what
happened.

>Bob Raimo's case (the latest) and the case of the first diver injured
>are not affected, and remain to be tried.

How much you want to bet Uwatec settles with "no addmission of guilt
or wrongdoing"? Or offers to settle.

>> I fear the vicious circle of insurance companies and torts are going to
>> pull us down by the heals as predators do their prey....
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>and will receive absolutely no compensation in any of the present 5
>cases of injured divers vs Uwatec.

Bob, my apologies. I thought you were a paid expert witness from the
website. Since I do that sort of thing in my own field of expertise,
I assumed that, since you were named as a specific witness, that you
were being brought in as a paid expert witness. If it is true that
you aren't being paid, I owe you an apology.

>To ME, every bit is worth it -- as a matter of PRINCIPLE -- to expose
>the companies and personnel for WHAT and WHO they are.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>-- Bob (Reef Fish), aka Feeesh.

Signature

dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

Reply to this Message

Reef Fish - 01 May 2004 02:56 GMT

> >> Bob,
> <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> addmission of guilt or wrongdoing" and nobody knows exactly what
> happened.

Dillon, you are showing a bit of naivite here.

Settling out of court and the non-disclosure of terms is standard
practice in litigation. The company does NOT "whitewash the whole
thing" at all, and most of the time it's simply an admission of
guilt but "cutting the loss" or not risking a much bigger loss that
may be rendered by court if not settled out of court.

Anyone who has even halfway followed the 7-year HISTORY of this
case would have known who the guilty party is, whether there is
"admission of guilt" or not, in or out of court.

Case in Point: The jury awarded the Plaintiffs $2 million in the
1998 case, based on the same Aladin Air-X Nitrox being "defective",
and the "conspiracy, slander, and outrage" on the ACTS that were
committed in Uwatec's attempted concealment of the defect.

Instead of appealing the case, Uwatec AG/USA settled out of court
(with undisclosed terms, as is customary). But I have good reason
to believe that the "settlement" was in the neighborhood of $1.5
million USD, in monetary terms. Cutting the loss of $500,000 USD
in addition to the further expenses of appeal(s) was the obvious
motive of said settlement.

Did Uwatec "whitewashed" the whole thing"? Hardly.

"Nobody knows exactly what happened" is ALWAYS true, whether any
case is settled out of court or not -- with the keyword being
"exactly". In this case, only a fool will think that Uwatec has
whitewashed the case and made it go away.

> >Bob Raimo's case (the latest) and the case of the first diver injured
> >are not affected, and remain to be tried.
>
> How much you want to bet Uwatec settles with "no addmission of guilt
> or wrongdoing"? Or offers to settle.

I don't make public bets or offer a public bet unless I am 100% certain
that I would win. :-) I offered several $10,000 bets of my money
against $1000 of any taker, and no one has ever called those bets yet.
I collected $2,500 on a bet someone offered against my $20,000.

In the case of your offer to bet, I would not be surprised if the cases
will be settled out of court, but I would not bet a penny one way or
another, because I am not 100% sure either way, but more importantly,
whether settled out of court or not, it would NOT whitewash Uwatec and
Johnson Outdoors, in my opinion. The HISTORY and KNOWN TRUTH about the
case will reek for years to come.

> >> I fear the vicious circle of insurance companies and torts are going to
> >> pull us down by the heals as predators do their prey....
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> were being brought in as a paid expert witness. If it is true that
> you aren't being paid, I owe you an apology.

Your apology, while unnecessary on your part, is cheerfully accepted.

Again, you did not read carefully what's on the website, and what I
said in my three-line statement cited above:

RF> I received and will receive absolutely no compensation in
RF> any of the present 5 cases of injured divers vs Uwatec.

I was cited on the website, with two others, as:

*> The following individuals have already testified or expressed their
*> opinion that a defect exists in the Aladin Air X Nitrox:

I was the (paid) expert witness in the 1998 case, about the defect
of the Aladin Air-X Nitrox computer. The "already testified" referred
to the 1998 court testimony.

*> Bret Gilliam, former CEO of Uwatec USA

was among the three listed on the present Concannon webpage. But
Bret was the GUILTY defendant in the 1998 case, and he DENIED the
existence of any defect then. He NOW, under supoena by court,
finally acknowledged the defect that had been known since 1966.

I do not know if Bret did anything for the plaintiffs and was
compensated this round, but it's entirely IRRELEVANT. Bret was
LYING about the defect in 1998, and caused Uwatec the court awarded
verdict of $2 million USD. Bret was finally admitting the
inevitable truth that the Aladin Air-X Computer in question WAS,
and IS, defective.

When the PRESENT court cases are over and done, whether settled out
of court or what the punitive terms are do NOT in any way white-
wash the fact that Uwatec was GUILTY of concealment, for SEVEN LONG
YEARS, of the defect of the computer in question, that led to the
present 5 bent divers who elected to litigate in court.

-- Bob.

> >To ME, every bit is worth it -- as a matter of PRINCIPLE -- to expose
> >the companies and personnel for WHAT and WHO they are.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> >
> >-- Bob (Reef Fish), aka Feeesh.

Reply to this Message

Dillon Pyron - 02 May 2004 00:42 GMT

>> >> Bob,
>> <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Dillon, you are showing a bit of naivite here.

Naw, more pissed off at the way our legal system "works".

>Settling out of court and the non-disclosure of terms is standard
>practice in litigation. The company does NOT "whitewash the whole
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>case would have known who the guilty party is, whether there is
>"admission of guilt" or not, in or out of court.

Sure, in this case that's clear. However, in many cases, the "X
settles" is inside section two news, whereas "jury finds for plaintif,
awards a gazillion dollars" (which is what they would have settled
for, to avoid paying tens of gazillion dollars) makes the front page.
Settlements never bare the public stigma of a finding.

>Case in Point: The jury awarded the Plaintiffs $2 million in the
>1998 case, based on the same Aladin Air-X Nitrox being "defective",
>and the "conspiracy, slander, and outrage" on the ACTS that were
>committed in Uwatec's attempted concealment of the defect.

That's good news. That's the kind of finding I want.

>Instead of appealing the case, Uwatec AG/USA settled out of court
>(with undisclosed terms, as is customary). But I have good reason
>to believe that the "settlement" was in the neighborhood of $1.5
>million USD, in monetary terms. Cutting the loss of $500,000 USD
>in addition to the further expenses of appeal(s) was the obvious
>motive of said settlement.

Yeah, but the finding still holds in the public's eyes.

>Did Uwatec "whitewashed" the whole thing"? Hardly.
>
>"Nobody knows exactly what happened" is ALWAYS true, whether any
>case is settled out of court or not -- with the keyword being
>"exactly". In this case, only a fool will think that Uwatec has
>whitewashed the case and made it go away.

Signature

dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

Reply to this Message

Bob Raimo - 26 Apr 2004 00:11 GMT

> Self serving? By informing the diving public the DIRTY tricks and
> LACK of ethics of Uwatec, now Johnson Outdoors? To let the public
> know that dive computer companies (Uwatec in particular) are more
> apt to CONCEAL known defects than inform divers of those defects that
> may bend them, and 5 of them did get bent using it?

Self serving was Uwatec, JWA and the Johnson family keeping secrets
and covering up a serious defect at the risk of diver injury and/or
death for profits......my opinion of course. They were not just
playing with money, but they were playing with lives, perhaps with
even some of you on this forum. In my opinion, they took a calculated
risk.

Reef fish is correct........if you read or reference Concannons site,
do so accurately.

Bob Raimo.

Reply to this Message

Reef Fish - 21 Apr 2004 00:11 GMT

> >For latest summary, go to:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Regardless of the merits of the case, this is really nothing more than
> a self serving bit of propoganda.

Perhaps, but only in SELF-DEFENCE of the self-serving bit of propaganda
by Johnson Outdoors:

*> It represents the opinion of this firm concerning this case.
*> For an opposing view of this case, please visit www.johnsonoutdoors.com.

Uwatec (now under Johnson Outdoors) had already been convicted, in 1998,
of "Conspiracy, Slander, and Outrage" in its concealment of defects,
by unethical practices.

It's about the SAME computer, the SAME company, that should have recalled
the computer, but didn't, until forced to, in 2003, after 5 injury cases
had been filed in lawsuits.

The two cited lines above CLEARLY and FAIRLY referred to the "opposing
view of this case", by the defendants.

You and everyone can make your own judgment, but IMHSHO, Uwatec had been
proven to conceal defects, and the NEW documents and evidence presented
in the webpage by Concannon makes it abundantly clear that Uwatec and
Johnson Outdoors are two very UNETHICAL companies, in their actions
relative to the known defective Uwatec Aladin Air-X Nitrox.

> Since it's a class action suit, they'll make a ton of money and
> the actual class members will get next to squat.

As I stated in response to Jason O'Rourke's NOISE, this is NOT a
class action case.

Regardless, your statement above is entirely irrelevant to the case.

Shouldn't you be more CONCERNED about the Ethical Conducts of the
dive computer companies and the Well-Being of your fellow divers,
than who makes what in a lawsuit?

-- Bob.

Reply to this Message

Urs Anliker - 21 Apr 2004 10:08 GMT

other recalls:
http://www.worlddivingassociation.com/recalls.htm
http://www.cdnn.info/recall/recallmares/recallmares.html

Reply to this Message

Unita - 22 Apr 2004 06:09 GMT

> Shouldn't you be more CONCERNED about the Ethical Conducts of the
> dive computer companies and the Well-Being of your fellow divers,
> than who makes what in a lawsuit?

This is really the heart of the matter. What I find most disturbing is
that it took 7 years before the computers were recalled. Now of course
during that time UWATEC was bought by Johnson Outdoors so bpth the
former and current owners share responsibility. However, it took
several injuries and the threat of suit before anything was done. I
would be very curious to know of other dive products that were
recalled but only after the threat of a suit (which usually implies
injuries).

As for me would I buy another computer from UWATEC? Probably not. For
moral but also technical reasons ...

Cheers,

Allen

Reply to this Message