On 4/11/10 12:23 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:19 pm, wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:03 pm, 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.



Your boat could use a warning sticker.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On Apr 10, 6:10*pm, hk wrote:
On 4/10/10 5:16 PM, Jack wrote:

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.

A president and his vice president lie about WMDs, and tens of thousands
of people paid the price with their lives and pocketbooks.

That's so screwed up it is unbelievable.

--http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

You act like a ****ing little boy out on the playground - *everyone
look at me, look at me, pay attention to me*.....
What in HELL does this thread have to do with politics, at least until
you injected your bull****?

On Apr 10, 6:40*pm, 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?

--
Conservatives - just pretend Obama's health care legislation is another
unnecessary war and you'll feel better about it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No one forced ANY of those workers to take those jobs.

On 4/11/10 10:16 AM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:40 pm, 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?

--
Conservatives - just pretend Obama's health care legislation is another
unnecessary war and you'll feel better about it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No one forced ANY of those workers to take those jobs.


Loogy...the Chumpion of Corporate America.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On 4/11/10 10:15 AM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:10 pm, wrote:
On 4/10/10 5:16 PM, Jack wrote:

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.

A president and his vice president lie about WMDs, and tens of thousands
of people paid the price with their lives and pocketbooks.

That's so screwed up it is unbelievable.

--http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

You act like a ****ing little boy out on the playground - *everyone
look at me, look at me, pay attention to me*.....
What in HELL does this thread have to do with politics, at least until
you injected your bull****?



Here's a secret for you...I don't give a damn about what passes for
thought in your pea-sized brain. BTW, it's spring here. When are you
planning to make your promised visit here to engage in criminal assault
and home invasion?


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

"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.
------
Brunswick should have provided smarter friends.

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:10:45 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
net...
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.


I am surprised we haven't made it illegal to drink coffee and drive.
It is certainly as disruptive as talking on the phone, even if you
don't spill it..

Phone is much more disruptive. Drinking coffee does not require any
concentration. Sort of second nature by the time you are an adult.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"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?



I believe it was a non-union mine.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 6:40 pm, 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?

--
Conservatives - just pretend Obama's health care legislation is another
unnecessary war and you'll feel better about it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No one forced ANY of those workers to take those jobs.


That's true, but the only other choice would be to move somewhere else, as
it's pretty much a single-industry area. In any case, there's specific
requirements in most industries for the healh and safety issues. Sounds like
the mine was pretty unsafe... 100s of violations, some quite serious. I
think the agency involved should also take a significant hit. My take is
they weren't doing their job.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:04:35 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


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.


Juries seem reluctant to award big damages against individuals but
socking it to an insurance company or a corporation seems like free
money to them. They do not understand we all pay that bill.
That is why a lot of doctors dropped their malpractice insurance in
the 70s but then the lawyers lobbied the legislature to make it
mandatory. We see that cost in our medical care bills now.
Insurance has simply become a big pool of money for lawyers to dive
into.


And, as I said and cited, it's a tiny percentage of insurance costs.

--
Nom=de=Plume