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.

On 10/04/2010 4:10 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:47:53 -0700 (PDT),
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?

The blame is partly with the insurance industry. They have frequently
taken the short sighted view that it is cheaper to settle some of
these claims than it is to fight them. That's probably true for any
one case but the long term effect is to set expensive precedents.

Yep. But also begets higher rates and more profit.

Mystifies me how they could lose this case. Even dumb as nails jury
can't be this stupid.

Brunswick shoul counter sue the driver and the swimer. Make their lives
hell.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

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


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?

On 10/04/2010 5:35 PM, 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


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?

Just watched the video, what a crock. 30% or worse fuel mileage
guaranteed. Just the hole in the middle, the drag. And the edges so
blunt it is like a hammer in water.

Easier just to pass a law that says drivers, like pilots and boat owners
are 100% by default responsible for the operation of their boat,
including liability. With a clause that states that in order to sue a
motor vendor, you must clearly show negligence in construction or
specified claims as being false.

Make it retroactive.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

"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

"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: When you become an expert in Admiralty law, do let us know.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2010 4:33 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...

Hopefully they appeal it. In fact, maybe ask why the driver of the boat
was not chargesd with negligence causing bodily harm? Go right to the
surpreme court! Pretty obvious the darwins were at work here too and that
this is a money grab.

How dumb to put guards on props, even then how can they stop a darwin from
shreding themselves? Just a piece of crap to go wrong and cause trouble,
certainly would drop mileage.

Gee, next they will sue GE for stove tops and Kleenex because their
fingers slipped through to their ass.

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


Sounds like you have experience with the latter.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:56:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, 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?

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.


You're telling me that a small diff in drag is going to be noticed?? So, now
the boat can go 52.3 mph instead of 55. I think most people wouldn't notice.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"thunder" wrote in message
...
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


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?


It's the right wing kooks who think our system of jurisprudence doesn't
work. Apparently our representative doesn't work either. Nothing works.
Perhaps they should just leave.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2010 4:10 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:47:53 -0700 (PDT),
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?

The blame is partly with the insurance industry. They have frequently
taken the short sighted view that it is cheaper to settle some of
these claims than it is to fight them. That's probably true for any
one case but the long term effect is to set expensive precedents.

Yep. But also begets higher rates and more profit.

Mystifies me how they could lose this case. Even dumb as nails jury can't
be this stupid.

Brunswick shoul counter sue the driver and the swimer. Make their lives
hell.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


And now, straight from Rush/Beck's sitcom, we have nucknuck who doesn't like
the jury system.

--
Nom=de=Plume