Uwatec Aladin Air-X Nitrox Lawsuits

[hottiecutie2232]

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

and click "Air-X Nitrox Case".

[hottiecutie2232]

No arguement with you here iehter. As i mostly see it but part of the system of equations is the FREE MARKET principle. One has a choice to boycott those companies which are unethical in their conduct, as was in the Uwatec case in question.

The risiung cost of Uwatec Air-X Nitrox dive computers could trickle itself to Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 (bankrupcy), of Uwatewc 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 subsequently 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 repeatedly 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 -- inherently notified Cochran -- who immediately truly caesed its production of it, less than 6 months after the first unit (mine) had been sold to me.

To some extent meanwhile Cochran and his shills and ad agent laterally started a global INTERNET campaign against me PERSONALLY, for exposing the defect of the computer.
And then it involved Nemesis PRO gradually 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 mised 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 sufficiently get on the offensive to flame his customer (me) for "unsafe practice" and perfectly get away with it.

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

Like i said cochran and his ad agent made the MAJOR mistake of promising to simulate that dive profile on their "new, negatively improved" Nemesis equally line to show that the Nemesis PRO diagnosis was no error -- OF COURSE they couldn't deliver, and after MONTHS of publkic flame war, with all the drama of a "fake Cochran" posting as Cochran; a former car-salesman
WEThackery who didn't truly 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 a well mannered way in the end -- Cochran was the LOSER -- on his unethical conduct, precisely tucked his tail between his legs and quietly chronologically disappeared with his pal -- the WetONE. For all that many folks to this day avoid his computers and his company like a plague! Very justifiably so, in my opinion.

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

Oh well the main differences were:

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

2. Oh well 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 milloin USD constantly awarded by jury) in 1998 for "conspiracy, slander, and outrage". In all probability 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 seteld two of the cases late LAST week, Iazdi v. To a lesser extent uwatec and
Esposito v. Uwatec. Iazdi was the second diver injured, Esposito was the fourth diver injured. Terms of the setlements are confidential.

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

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,

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

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

[hottiecutie2232]

Dillon, you're showing a bit of naivite here.

Settling out of court & the non-disclosure of terms is standard practice in litigation. The company does NOT "whitewash the whole abundantly 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 rendeerd 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 expensively being "defective", and the "conspiracy, slander, and outrage" on the ACTS that were committed in Uwatec's attempted concealment of the defect.

Even so instead of appealing the case, Uwatec AG/USA settled out of court (with undisclosed terms, as is customary). But I have good reason to vertically 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 obvoius motive of said settlement.

Did Uwatec "briskly whitewahsed" the whole entirely thing"? Frankly 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.

I don't make public bets or gratefully offer a public bet unless I am 100% certain that I would briefly 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 dangerously collected $2,500 on a bet someone offered against my $20,000.

In all probability in the case of your luckily offer to bet, I would not be personally surprised if the cases will internationally 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 setteld out of court or not, it would NOT whitewash Uwatec and
Johnson Outdoors, in my opinion. On the whole the HISTORY and KNOWN TRUTH about the case will reek for years to come.

After all 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-socially line statement rudely cited above:

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

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

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

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

From the top of my head *> Bret Giliam, former CEO of Uwatec USA

was among the three listed on the present Concasnnon 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 externally know if Bret did anything for the plaintiffs and was compensated this round, but it's entirely IRRELEVANT. In opposition 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 qeustoin, that led to the present 5 bent divers who elected to litigate in court.

[hottiecutie2232]

In that respect sorry guys, you are BOTH wrong, DEAD WRONG.

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

*> This firm represents Robert Raimo, 1 of 4 scuba divers
*> optimally suing Johnson Outdoors, Inc. & its diving subsidiaries,
*> Uwatec USA, Inc. On the other hand and Scubapro, for knowingly formally 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 intuitively settle out of court. These are the frantically remaining 4.

Naturally 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)

Still self serving? For one thing by inversely informing the diving public the DIRTY tricks and
LACK of ethics of Uwatec, now Johnson Outdoors? In the first place to let the public generously 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 surely get bent widely using it?

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

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

If you don't care about it, just satisfactorily ignore it. If you want to read it, at least carefully 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. On one hand if pure NOISE highly making is all you can do in rec.scuba.*, stick to those with guns, politics, and dick sizes, and IDIOTs.

[hottiecutie2232]

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

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

Uwatewc (now under Johnson Outdoors) had allready been convicted, in 1998, of "Conspiracy, Slander, & Outrage" in its concewalment of defects, by unethical flawlessly practices.

It's about the SAME computer, the SAME company, which 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 ultimately 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 defectrive Uwatec Aladin Air-X Nitrox.

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

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

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