"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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/...sts-new-trial/

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.


So, because the defense attorney is vigorously representing his client, and
there's a review underway, that means it's going to be overturned. I think
I'll wait for the outcome of the investigation... unlike you who wants to
condemn any and everything you don't "think" is right.

--
Nom=de=Plume