A Greenville SC jury has
rendered a $2 million verdict
against Uwatec, the Swiss manufacturer
of dive computers, for
“conspiracy, slander, and outrage”
in a suit filed by two former
employees that has called into
question the safety of Uwatec
Aladin Air-X Nitrox model dive
computers manufactured prior to
1996. Uwatec has filed an appeal
in the case. Officials are also
investigating whether Uwatec’s
president and CEO, Bret C.
Gilliam, obstructed justice,
committed perjury, and then
directed an employee to commit
perjury during the trial.
Problems began when Uwatec
  fired its U.S. sales office managers,
  Frank H. Marshall and Patricia
  Daugherty, in April, 1996, purportedly
  because the office had lost
  money and the company had
  decided to hire a new management
  team. A month later, Uwatec filed a
  report with the Greenville SC
  sheriff’s office accusing Marshall
  and Daugherty of breach of trust
  and computer crimes, then said it
  had determined that the acts had
  been committed by another
  employee and it had decided not to
  press charges.  
Marshall and Daugherty,
  however, contend that they were
  “set up” and that they were not
  fired because of wrong-doing. (In
  fact, Marshall told Undercurrent he
  was an “employee they offered
  their job back to,” and that this
  fact was a matter of court record.)
  Rather, the employees say they
  were fired because they pressed
  for a recall of up to 180 pre-1996
  Aladin Air-X Nitrox dive computers
  that they believe are defective.
  They allege that an algorithmic
  error in the computer could
  result in an artificially low calculation
  of the user’s blood nitrogen
  levels. (According to the
  plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Bob
  Ling, “when the Nitrox computer
  is set to dive at whatever EAN%,
  e.g., 40% O2, the algorithm
  continues to calculate at that
  percentage during the surface
  interval (instead of the correct
  21% for air).... Over several
  repetitive dives, the cumulative
  effect could easily lead to decompression
  illness if a diver takes the
  reading to be diagnostically
  correct.”) Ling reports that he tested a purportedly defective unit
and a unit manufactured in
March of 1996 in a “pressure pot”
and on independent dives on a
live-aboard trip doing four or five
dives per day. He states that his
“‘lab test’ (after 3 repetitive dives
of 30 minutes with 1 hr. surface
interval each) produced a desat
discrepancy of 13 hrs. and a no-fly
discrepancy of 8 hrs. The real
dives on the live-aboard produced
much larger discrepancies
cumulatively after 4 days.” Uwatec
contends that Ling acknowledged
that “a deviation in one unit was
in no way proof that an entire
series of units have the same
deviation” and that “there were
many different reasons deviations
might occur in dive computers.”
Uwatec states that it stands by
  the safety record of the Aladin Air
  X Nitrox and that it “has never
  received any report, notice,
  complaint, correspondence or
  other information indicating any
  potential defect in the Aladin Air
  X Nitrox units aside from the
  allegations of two terminated
  Uwatec employees. Furthermore,
  Uwatec has conducted comprehensive
  in-house hyperbaric
  chamber testing on several of the
  allegedly defective units and these
  test results indicate no defect in
  the product.” One of the plaintiffs
  contacted the Compliance Board
  of the U.S. Consumer Product
  Safety Commission regarding the
  possible defect, and Uwatec
  responded to the complaint by
  furnishing their test results and
  stating that they have received no
  other complaints about the units.
  To date, Uwatec has not received
  a response from the Commission.  
The perjury allegations stem
  from Gilliam’s testimony at the
  slander and conspiracy trial that
  Uwatec had no pre-1996 Air-X
  Nitrox dive computers for the
  plaintiffs to test against reliable
  computer units to see whether the
  pre-1996 units gave unsafe or
  erroneous readings. When two of
  Uwatec’s dealers testified that they
  had recently returned pre-1996
  units to Gilliam and another
  employee testified that Gilliam
  had at least two units sitting on his
  desk, the court ordered an
  investigation on charges of
  perjury. Further, according to the
  transcript of the sanctions hearing
  against Gilliam held in September,
  the court has also ordered an
  investigation of Gilliam for
  “suborning perjury,” perjury, and
  obstruction of justice during the
  course of the trial.
The attorney for the plaintiffs,
Pat Paschal, noted in the record
that Gilliam’s actions were “compounded
by the fact that the
testimony indicated that a diver
using [a] defective unit...if it went
wrong on him to cause injury for
him he would never know it went
wrong. The only way to tell if they
went wrong is to compare one
against the other.... The testimony
was that Bret Gilliam told Frank
Marshall ‘don’t worry about this, it
is a conservative mistake, no one
will get hurt.’ ...[T]hat has been
their entire approach in this case...
[T]heir motive behind failing to
cooperate is if someone gets hurt
they will never know what caused
it. Their motive is not that they
have done wrong, but that they just
can’t get caught doing it.” The
court also observed that Uwatec
hoped “to sell the company for 25
million dollars.”
When Undercurrent spoke to
  Gilliam about the suit prior to the
  perjury investigation, he characterized
  it as a complaint by disgruntled
  employees that began
  prior to his tenure with Uwatec.
  However, according to counsel for
  the parties to the suit, final settlement
  proposals are currently being
  drafted, but the dollar amount and
  other terms are not being disclosed.
  Uwatec’s new owner,
  Johnson World Wide Associates,
  has moved the company to California
  without him and most of the
  staff.  
While Uwatec maintains that
  the computers have no problems,
  users who are concerned about
  whether their Aladin computer is
  safe to use should note that the
  alleged algorithmic error affected
  only Aladin Air-X Nitrox computers
  tested prior to 1996. Aladin
  computers have the test date
  printed on the back of the wrist
  unit in a “MM.YY” format, with
  “10.95” indicating a unit tested in
  October, 1995. The purportedly
  defective algorithm is reportedly
  not incorporated in the Aladin Pro
  Nitrox or any of the other Aladin
  Air-X or non-air-integrated Aladin
  models. Should users wish to
  contact Uwatec, they can be
  reached at 011-41-62-777-29-40 or
  by fax at 011-41-62-777-22-80. Their
  website address is www.uwatec.com.  
—John Q. Trigger