Tim 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?

Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it.
It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because
it was hot.

hk wrote:
On 4/10/10 6:33 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, wrote:
On 10/04/2010 3:56 PM, 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.

Does not mater. The husband basically ran this wench over:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...d-boat-propell...


Not sure if it is the same case as the dallas link is broken. But what
a darwin move. Even if it had a guard, you are so darwinian stupid to
do this as a captain or as a swimmer.

100% captians fault. And judge should just say so and let OMC sue the
**** out of him for recovery costs. Take their home even and even go
for the plaintifs lawyer for taking such a stupid case.

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

"The jury found Brunswick 66 percent liable for the injury, with
Brochtrup and the boat's driver responsible for the rest. Because the
driver was not part of the lawsuit, he will not have to pay. "

So the pilot was at fault by 33 % but seeing he's not in the suit, be
doesnt' have to pay.

uh-huh...


How much do you think the owners/operators of the mine that killed 29
this week should have to pay in damages to the families of the dead?





That's unrelated to this post and boats.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:42:23 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:35:09 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:39:41 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

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.

But what if there is?

http://www.rbbi.com/pgic/ptech/safet...ypropeller.htm


You notice he is careful to rub the edge of the prop, not stick his foot
into the leading edge like a swimmer would do. Try it on your table fan.
Stick something in on the suction side, like the back of a prop when you
are in reverse.

It is also turning pretty slow, in the air without the suction of water
to multiply the effect


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

Is it the lawyers, or the 30-40 Americans that are killed every year?
Injured or killed?

They were killed. The cite came from somewhere in that safety propeller
site.

In the grand scheme of things that is a pretty small number

What do you think the effect is on performance, fuel mileage etc?

If it can be believed, top speeds were reduced by less than .2 mph. Hey,
I'm not saying the "safety propeller" is the answer, but propeller
technology is definitely old technology. I can see improvements being
made, especially where loved ones body parts are exposed.

I know, screw the environment, global warming, dependence of foreign oil
etc if we can save a few stupid people from otherwise preventable
accidents.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote:


Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it.
It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because
it was hot.

Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling.
Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

On Apr 10, 9:03*pm, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote:
Amazing. *Two morons and a big settlement. *I hope they can appeal it.
It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because
it was hot.

Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling. *
Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

The posts by HK and Nom in this thread constitute proof that neither
does any boating.

On Apr 10, 9:19*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:03*pm, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote:
Amazing. *Two morons and a big settlement. *I hope they can appeal it.
It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because
it was hot.

Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling. *
Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

The posts by HK and Nom in this thread constitute proof that neither
does any boating.

Next, they (he) will be agreeing that boats need a warning sticker
saying that water is a drowning hazard.

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/10/10 6:33 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, wrote:
On 10/04/2010 3:56 PM, 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.

Does not mater. The husband basically ran this wench over:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...d-boat-propell...

Not sure if it is the same case as the dallas link is broken. But what
a darwin move. Even if it had a guard, you are so darwinian stupid to
do this as a captain or as a swimmer.

100% captians fault. And judge should just say so and let OMC sue the
**** out of him for recovery costs. Take their home even and even go
for the plaintifs lawyer for taking such a stupid case.

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

"The jury found Brunswick 66 percent liable for the injury, with
Brochtrup and the boat's driver responsible for the rest. Because the
driver was not part of the lawsuit, he will not have to pay. "

So the pilot was at fault by 33 % but seeing he's not in the suit, be
doesnt' have to pay.

uh-huh...


How much do you think the owners/operators of the mine that killed 29 this
week should have to pay in damages to the families of the dead?




How much should the mine workers union pay the families for not protecting
the workers?

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2010 3:56 PM, 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.

Does not mater. The husband basically ran this wench over:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...d-boat-propell...

Not sure if it is the same case as the dallas link is broken. But what
a darwin move. Even if it had a guard, you are so darwinian stupid to
do this as a captain or as a swimmer.

100% captians fault. And judge should just say so and let OMC sue the
**** out of him for recovery costs. Take their home even and even go
for the plaintifs lawyer for taking such a stupid case.

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

"The jury found Brunswick 66 percent liable for the injury, with
Brochtrup and the boat's driver responsible for the rest. Because the
driver was not part of the lawsuit, he will not have to pay. "

So the pilot was at fault by 33 % but seeing he's not in the suit, be
doesnt' have to pay.

uh-huh...

Reply:
Plus it was shopped to a Louisiana court. Which is famous for giving huge
awards. I think LA gets a cut probably.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

"The jury found Brunswick 66 percent liable for the injury, with
Brochtrup and the boat's driver responsible for the rest. Because the
driver was not part of the lawsuit, he will not have to pay. "

So the pilot was at fault by 33 % but seeing he's not in the suit, be
doesnt' have to pay.

uh-huh...


No insurance.

But the drivers family owned the boat. Go after their insurance and assets.
The family loaned a teenager the boat.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Larry wrote:


Amazing. Two morons and a big settlement. I hope they can appeal it.
It's worse than the lady who spilled coffee on her lap and sued because
it was hot.

Yeah, well there is hot, and then there is what McDonald's was selling.
Eight days in hospital, with skin grafts, hot.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

When you are 70 years old, and a coffee drinker, you should have learned
coffee is hot. And not be so stupid as to take off the protective lid and
place the cup in your crotch as your son drives over the curb leaving McD's.
And the $24million was reduced to about 1.4 million. After medical and
legal costs, I bet she had enough to buy a senior coffee at McD's.