Closed Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Barrett vs Ambient

  1. #1
    Moderator jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski has a reputation beyond repute jradomski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    "Da" Bronx
    Posts
    4,116
    Hammehead & rEvo & Custom

    KISS,Optima,Inspiration,Meg

    Barrett vs Ambient

    from Inspiration List..

    The Barrett v Ambient trial was concluded today, November 18th 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
    Last edited by Curt Bowen; 20th November 2008 at 01:21.
    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.

  2. #2

    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

  3. #3
    Banned jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont is a splendid one to behold jont's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York, NY USA
    Posts
    879
    Revo3 RMS, Revo3 Micro FT, MEG

    HH, YBOD, Drager, MK, etc.

    Re: Barrett vs Ambient

    Quote Originally Posted by RBW ASSISTANT  View Original Post
    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

    Outstanding Work!!!!!!!!! Diving is dangerous.....unfortunately good people are going to be hurt and killed.......READ THE WAIVERS....if you don't agree with them DON'T sign and don't buy the product...

    What happened to RESPONSIBILITY??? Oh yeas this is the new and improved soon to be socialist United States....now I understand.

    Great work though,

    Cheers.

  4. #4
    LEARNING CONTINUALLY rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    S.E. TEXAS
    Posts
    771
    Inspo Vision

    Classic YBOD

    Re: Barrett vs Ambient

    Glad to hear it was fought and not paid in the interest of "savings."

Closed Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts