Tony Nissen was the head of engineering for OceanGate.
I looked it up and Nissen actually left OceanGate in 2019 according to his LinkedIn. If I recall correctly, they rebuilt the Titan in 2020. Of course I don't know anything about the basis for their lawsuit, but to me it seems like they are on pretty shaky ground to pursue someone who only worked on the previous version and left four years before the implosion.
I don't know if the role was filled or there was was any "shuffling" as is sometimes seen in smaller companies. But Nissan is alive. I'm not an attorney but (cynically) I think a lawsuit that contains some live defendants, people who may be frantic about losing everything, may be easier to win against than when all the defendants are
The Complaint states that Electroimpact laid the carbon fibers used for Titan's hull, and Janicki Industries cured the material in its ovens. Hydrospace manufactured the acrylic viewport. The case against them stems mostly in a product liability framework. I think those will be hard to prevail on or even survive summary judgment. Plaintiff will have to show how these items were defective in their production. Maybe they can claim that these companies were involved in the actual design of the sub? Not sure exactly what the claim is.
It isn't clear and maybe that is intentional, keeping that open while discovery proceeds. I think it would be difficult to prove a manufacturing defect. I guess the argument could be that they provided these materials knowing that they would be used in a deep sea submersible and that they never should have done that. But I'm not sure how that would play out. But as you point out, the Plaintiff wants to get people on there that have some money. But it doesn't mean they will get it. I see they are claiming all defendants have joint and several liability. I am sure Washington recognizes comparative fault however. But I don't know anything about how those Maritime Law causes of action work.
I concur, it will be difficult for plaintiff to disprove "suitability for purpose" which in this case, is almost synonymous with "suitability for depth"...if there was a very specific document forwarded from Oceangate that indicated operating depth, rate of descent and frequency of use, the manufacturer/fabricators might have some exposure. Its well established upthread that Hydrogate published a pressure rating for the viewport dome, and it was nowhere near corresponding to the depth of the Titanic. I don't believe they would have issued an exception for Oceangate.
That coupled with the fact that they have the money to spend being risk takers.
