Uwatec Aladin Air-X Nitrox Lawsuits

On 30 Apr 2004 18:56:12 -0700, Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef
Fish) wrote:

>Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<i02590l6ur8rk6t09r89ir0svjikt5irs5@4ax.com>. ..
>> On 29 Apr 2004 21:50:42 -0700, Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef
>> Fish) wrote:
>>
>> >"007" <Holdinurbreath@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message news:<c6h37i$j5s$1@news.utelfla.com>...
>> >> 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.
>
>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
>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.

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.
>
>
<read the rest of his post. I refuse to waste bandwidth telling the
truth when I could be questioning the sexuality of others>

--
dillon

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