Barrett vs Ambient

***jradomski*** · 19th November 2008, 10:19

from Inspiration List..

The Barrett v Ambient trial was concluded today, November 18^th 2008, in Concord, New Hampshire.

Mr Barrett died on August 3rd 2002 while diving at Bainbridge Sportsman Club in Pennsylvania. The cause of death was listed as accidental drowning, but the cause of drowning was undetermined.

The claim was one of product liability. The plaintiff claimed that the Inspiration rebreather was "unreasonably dangerous" because it was prone to power interruptions from "battery bounce" and brownout of the electronic controllers (which the plaintiff claimed occurred without warning), despite there being no evidence whatsoever of any of these events. Additionally, Mr Barrett made several unapproved modifications to his Inspiration rebreather, including adding environmental seals to the first stages of his Apeks regulators and possibly overusing an unapproved scrubber material. He was diving solo at the time of his death.

The plaintiff's claims were supported by the "expert" testimony of: Dr Alex Deas (who admitted that he suffered at least three floods on his Inspiration rebreather and tried to clean the electronics by running them through the dishwasher), Adm. Donald Arthur, MD (former Surgeon General USN), Stan Smith, PhD (economist), plus others (not present at Court). Annemarie McAteer was listed as a trial witness for the plaintiff within hours of being banned from the Inspiration List, although she was not called to testify at trial.

Ambient's experts included: Dr David Sawatzky, Mr David Pence and Dr Bill Hamilton (not present at Court).

After two weeks of trial, the jury today returned their unanimous verdict – the Inspiration rebreather was NOT at fault and Ambient was NOT liable for the death of Mr. Barrett. Under U.S. law, Ambient will automatically recover it’s costs of suit. Ambient intends to bring additional legal action against the plaintiff’s attorneys to recover the lawyers’ fees it incurred to defend the suit. In order to discourage frivolous litigation.
Best regards,

Martin Parker
Managing Director
MartinParker@apdiving.com
Ambient Pressure Diving
Tel: 01326 563834
Fax: 01326 565945

RBW ASSISTANT · 20th November 2008, 02:02

I am Ambient's legal counsel in the United States.

There were originally more than a dozen defendants in the Barrett case, including Ambient, SDS, TDI, O2 Technical Diving, Abucs Scuba, Teledyne, three individuals and Dolphinos Dive Shop in Canada. I represented all of the defendants except Teledyne and Dolphinos.

The case lasted more than four years. Teledyne and Dolphinos settled with the plaintiff after two years. My clients and I refused to participate in any settlement negotiations, choosing to fight instead. Eventually, all of the plaintiff's claims against all of the remaining parties except Ambient were dismissed.

The plaintiff's claims against Ambient for breach of warranty, deceptive trade practices and punitive damages were later dismissed by the court for lack of evidence. The remaining claims for negligence and strict products liability were submitted to the jury because there were disputed issues of fact (that is, the testimony of Ambient's experts coflicted with the testimony of Alex Deas for the plaintiff, and only a jury may decide disputed factual issues).

The jury returned its verdict in favor of Ambient in approximately one hour, half of which was spent waiting for the exhibits to be sent to the jury room. This is an extraordinarily short period of time to deliberate in a complicated products liability case, which tells me the individual jurors were not persuaded by the plaintiff's case before the group deliberations began. The jury's verdict was unanimous.

I hope this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Ambient's legal counsel

19th November 2008, 10:19	#1 (permalink)
*jradomski* Moderator Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Sport Kiss Optima rEvo Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Evolution Megalodon Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: "Da" Bronx Posts: 3,448	Barrett vs Ambient from Inspiration List.. The Barrett v Ambient trial was concluded today, November 18^th 2008, in Concord, New Hampshire. Mr Barrett died on August 3rd 2002 while diving at Bainbridge Sportsman Club in Pennsylvania. The cause of death was listed as accidental drowning, but the cause of drowning was undetermined. The claim was one of product liability. The plaintiff claimed that the Inspiration rebreather was "unreasonably dangerous" because it was prone to power interruptions from "battery bounce" and brownout of the electronic controllers (which the plaintiff claimed occurred without warning), despite there being no evidence whatsoever of any of these events. Additionally, Mr Barrett made several unapproved modifications to his Inspiration rebreather, including adding environmental seals to the first stages of his Apeks regulators and possibly overusing an unapproved scrubber material. He was diving solo at the time of his death. The plaintiff's claims were supported by the "expert" testimony of: Dr Alex Deas (who admitted that he suffered at least three floods on his Inspiration rebreather and tried to clean the electronics by running them through the dishwasher), Adm. Donald Arthur, MD (former Surgeon General USN), Stan Smith, PhD (economist), plus others (not present at Court). Annemarie McAteer was listed as a trial witness for the plaintiff within hours of being banned from the Inspiration List, although she was not called to testify at trial. Ambient's experts included: Dr David Sawatzky, Mr David Pence and Dr Bill Hamilton (not present at Court). After two weeks of trial, the jury today returned their unanimous verdict – the Inspiration rebreather was NOT at fault and Ambient was NOT liable for the death of Mr. Barrett. Under U.S. law, Ambient will automatically recover it’s costs of suit. Ambient intends to bring additional legal action against the plaintiff’s attorneys to recover the lawyers’ fees it incurred to defend the suit. In order to discourage frivolous litigation. Best regards, Martin Parker Managing Director MartinParker@apdiving.com Ambient Pressure Diving Tel: 01326 563834 Fax: 01326 565945 __________________ Joe Radomski CCR Trimix Instructor Trainer ANDI Instructor Trainer Director #10 All posts are personal opinions and DO NOT reflect any affiliated agency unless specifically stated. Last edited by Curt Bowen : 20th November 2008 at 01:21.
(Offline)

20th November 2008, 02:02	#2 (permalink)
RBW ASSISTANT RBW WORKER BEE Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 17	Re: Barrett vs Ambient I am Ambient's legal counsel in the United States. There were originally more than a dozen defendants in the Barrett case, including Ambient, SDS, TDI, O2 Technical Diving, Abucs Scuba, Teledyne, three individuals and Dolphinos Dive Shop in Canada. I represented all of the defendants except Teledyne and Dolphinos. The case lasted more than four years. Teledyne and Dolphinos settled with the plaintiff after two years. My clients and I refused to participate in any settlement negotiations, choosing to fight instead. Eventually, all of the plaintiff's claims against all of the remaining parties except Ambient were dismissed. The plaintiff's claims against Ambient for breach of warranty, deceptive trade practices and punitive damages were later dismissed by the court for lack of evidence. The remaining claims for negligence and strict products liability were submitted to the jury because there were disputed issues of fact (that is, the testimony of Ambient's experts coflicted with the testimony of Alex Deas for the plaintiff, and only a jury may decide disputed factual issues). The jury returned its verdict in favor of Ambient in approximately one hour, half of which was spent waiting for the exhibits to be sent to the jury room. This is an extraordinarily short period of time to deliberate in a complicated products liability case, which tells me the individual jurors were not persuaded by the plaintiff's case before the group deliberations began. The jury's verdict was unanimous. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Ambient's legal counsel
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode