run over a friend w/ your boat? manufacturer is liable

jt09 · Ladies Man Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 22083 City: Austin

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...le-527456.html

hco · Posted: Apr 07, 2010 5:31 pm Post subject:

I'm pretty sure Searay was having financial troubles not too long ago, but it may have been another mfg. I thought they went up for bid but didn't receive anything worth while.

holdsworth · Posted: Apr 07, 2010 6:31 pm Post subject:

This is why I/O's aren't supposed to be used as ski boats. Hell, I'm afraid to even swim around an I/O in the back in case I accidentally kick the outdrive (which I've done multiple times) or someone starts it up to move it without knowing I'm back there and can't hear me. I think the kid driving should've been sued for being a dumby wumby and only sued for medical expenses. Taking advantage of the manufacturer for something they weren't in control of is ridiculous. Safety device around the moving parts would require a lot of R&D in order for the flow to be right for propulsion along with larger engine and huge design modifications for it all to work the exact same way with no parasitic losses.

hco · Posted: Apr 07, 2010 6:35 pm Post subject:

Other lawsuits similar to this have turned out in favor of the MFG's, so I wouldn't be suprised by either a smaller out-of-court settlement or an appeal.

jt09 · Ladies Man Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 22083 City: Austin

hco · Posted: Apr 07, 2010 6:58 pm Post subject:

I know that they are kind of similar, but if a MFG. did put a "basket" around their inboard outboard and someone still managed to get hurt/bash the basket (easily done on sand or rocks or other obstacles) and then got hurt, it would be even more of the MFG's fault. Also, I know they are similar, but I would imagine that there would be other differences between an I/O and outboard.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Surprisingly, I do not support forcing manufacturers to put guards on. I can't really explain why yet though.

BrentC5Z · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 5:08 am Post subject:

If they start installing them now, I'd expect a TON of class actions from people who've been hurt over the years. It's like admitting they've been dangerous and needed them all this time, but the MFG's just didn't do it.

ridininmd · Wakeboarder.Commie Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 1231

GnarShredd · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 5:46 am Post subject:

cameraboy, Maybe because it should be an option (dealer or aftermarket). This did not come down to a manufacturer defect, it was an unfortunate misake by the driver.

Has a car company ever been sued because someone using their product hit and killed/injured a pedestrian because the front of the car didn't have extra padding put on it?

To me this is just people being sue-happy. Hopefully there is more to the case than is being explained in the story, otherwise that's a bit ridiculous.

pet575 · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 6:55 am Post subject:

jt09 · Ladies Man Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 22083 City: Austin

i pulled this topic from another board, and this guy has shown up to chime in w/ some valid points:

eeven73 · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 7:33 am Post subject:

how about some personal responsibility?

GnarShredd · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 7:35 am Post subject:

pet575, I guess I should have re-worded a bit. Someone was at fault and if they want to take it to court between the parties involved, so be it. But to bring in the manufacturer is, to me, unreasonable (unless as I mentioned, there was some type of defect that caused the problem, which from the information given, there was not).

You can't protect the world from stupidity and/or every possible accident.

pet575 · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 8:02 am Post subject:

GnarShredd, I agree-which is why I seconded the above comments about the jury. The JURY decided this was the manufacturer's fault for not having a safety mechanism to prevent the prop strike from happening. I'm betting that the plaintiff had some experts testify as to the ability to incorporate some type of device without huge expense or decrease in performance-someone presenting ideas similar to that posted by JT above.

If we assume that "Gary" has posted accurate information, do you still believe that the manufacturer has no responsibility? Note that the jury DID find that the injured person was also at fault, and that the manufacturer was "partially liable" and not 100% liable in the eyes of the jury.

DRAGON88 · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 8:49 am Post subject:

ontrider · Ladies Man Joined: 30 Jul 2003 Posts: 16491 City: Russia

Without reading the whole thread... I'm assuming a good amount of R&D would be involved for each boat model requiring a propeller guard, so why the hell would a boat manufacturer want to incur such large costs and then likely have to pass them on to every consumer based on the fact that some f'ing idiot doesn't know how to drive a boat and backs it into someone swimming behind him? What's next, having to pass an IQ test in order to buy a mitre saw?

GnarShredd · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 9:25 am Post subject:

pet575, Yes, I believe as a consumer, you can make the decision if you want a guard on your boat or not. Any boater with even minimal experience (heck, even just some common sence) knows that propellers can be a dangerous thing. It should be up to you if you want to do something about it or if you just want to be reasonably careful in operation.

I'm not sure how it's worded (never read through manuals or anything) but boat companies already provide warnings as to the many dangers involved and I'm sure there is at least SOMETHING about how dangerous a propeller can be.

Using the product incorrectly IMO, especially when there are clear warnings about the dangers, is not grounds for a lawsuit (but what do I know?).

Nor*Cal · Ladies Man Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 9479 City: Sac

jt09 · Ladies Man Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 22083 City: Austin

if some of you want to delve into the lawyering side of it, there's plenty in the original thread here: http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/61199-Buddy-backs-over-friend-with-ski-boat-manfucturer-66-responsible

Nor*Cal · Ladies Man Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 9479 City: Sac

jt09, all I'm saying is that it's an awfully Californian verdict. Welcome to liberal jury verdicts. Looks like Texas is slipping.

JeffR · Addict Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 608 City: Victoria, BC

jt09, sent you a pm on prop guards

pet575 · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 1:55 pm Post subject:

jt09, I see a big discussion on foreseeability, reasonableness, market forces, and the competence of judges and juries. Not much discussion in there about the legal theories upon which the case was built, the testimony the lawyers put on as evidence in support of the position that some type of safety guard should exist, or the manner in which they went about building their case to actually establish a foundation that the jury could get behind.

Did I miss something?

jt09 · Ladies Man Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 22083 City: Austin

jc on a crutch pet575...you sound like a lawyer! Laughing

STPHNSN23 · Guest

_bruky · Wakeboarder.Commie Joined: 24 May 2009 Posts: 1201

PGIC · Posted: Apr 08, 2010 7:43 pm Post subject:

Hi! I am the Gary that webmasters the Propeller Guard Information Center and the source of some info that was quoted by others in this thread earlier. Thanks for receiving our comments in the spirit they were intended and for not lashing out at them.

Some mention wanting to see some more details of the actual Brochtrup v. Mercury Marine, et al case. We have a page covering the details of the trial at:
http://www.rbbi.com/pgic/pcases/brochtrup/brochtrup-propeller.htm

Gary
Propeller Guard Information Center

1w00d · Soul Rider Joined: 29 Apr 2003 Posts: 331 City: Wichita

So next you will be able to sue GM/Ford/Dodge/etc if someone runs over someone else?

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

While I am not in favor of suing over this boat prop thing, the car comparison is not exactly analogous.

STPHNSN23 · Guest

Nor*Cal · Ladies Man Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 9479 City: Sac

pet575 · Posted: Apr 09, 2010 8:25 am Post subject:

I agree with STPHNSN23. Your litigation strategy is to include every possible option that could pay at the beginning. The rules of civil procedure limit your ability to bring them in later if you don't, and it would be malpractice if you failed to bring in a legitimate party and then were barred from doing so by the rules. That is why the "sue them all and then let it shake out" approach is followed.

My personal and professional opinion on this is that the jury only got this thing somewhat wrong. My take is that the manufacturer could/should be liable if there was a safety device that could reasonably be attached but they just elected not to do so. Of course, it would take a convincing expert to convince a jury of this-and it appears that is what happened in this case.

Where I think the jury erred, however, is in HOW MUCH liability they gave the manufacturer. Regardless of the evidence, the known facts (IMHO) should give the driver and the plaintiff AT LEAST 50% of the fault here.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Nor*Cal · Ladies Man Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 9479 City: Sac

PGIC · Posted: Apr 09, 2010 6:04 pm Post subject:

I am not a lawyer, but ...

People injured in automobile accidents sometimes sue auto manufacturers claiming their injuries caused by secondary impact with the interior of an automobile after a crash could have been prevented or mitigated by proper design, and thus the automobile was not crashworthy.

Some prop cases have used the crashworthiness doctrine, like the Decker v. OMC case tried in Naples FL last year. In that case the Judge made it very clear, the lawyers were to make no mention of ANYTHING prior to her being in the water (she was ejected). Crashworthiness cases purely focus on hitting some part of the vehicle/vessel after an event. They dont care how you got there.
Our coverage of Decker v. OMC
http://www.rbbi.com/pgic/pcases/decker/decker.htm

In the Brochtrup case, much was made of the possible contribution (liability) of Brochtrup and the boat operator in the events immediately preceding the accident. That would not have been allowed in a crashworthiness case as I understand it. Plus striking the prop did not appear to be a secondary event for him (he was not ejected).

Brochtrup claimed the boat had a defect in it when it left the factory and that that defect caused the event and his injuries.

Gary
Propeller Guard Information Center