On 10/04/2010 4:39 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:56:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html

So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry that
props should have guards?

A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor. The
driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy with the
prop.

The boat manufacturer has to pay.

That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. Almost.


Hmm... so a simple device, known to prevent such accidents is intentionally
not used, someone is maimed, but the boat manufacturer has no liability? I
guess a jury disagreed. I guess that's communism run amok.

The problem is there is no "simple device" that does this. Boat
manufacturers spend millions of dollars designing boats to reduce drag
and you want a parachute attached around the prop?
(that would be the effect of any prop guard)
We have had this out a lot here in reference to manatees getting prop
scars. Nobody has had a reasonable answer.

BTW I love the quote
"Brunswick officials said in a statement that they are sympathetic to
Brochtrup but "stand behind our products," they should have added "...
but don't swim behind them when they are backing up."

This is just lawyers running amok and adding to the price of every
boat made in the future.

Or make them offshore and sell them as is. So you have to go to Peking
or Taiwan to sue.

Where do they get these juries? They must be some of the dumbest nails
around.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.