Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html


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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

On 10/04/2010 3:16 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.

What a darwin.

Yes, unbelievable. Just like McDonalds hot coffee and minivan windows
at 55mph collisions....

Everyone elses fault. Somebody else must pay for the darwins stupidity.
Give me a break, why are these suits not just tossed out of court with
prejudice?

Makes me wonder in the total cost of a boat, how much of it is in legal,
insurance and taxes. Next time we buy one, might have to sign 25 sheets
of disclamer.

"If your are stupid enough to stick you body into the propeller, or if
your are inept captian, you will find no fault with our product and you
cannot sue us. If you try to sue us, we reserve the right for total
compensation for your frivious studpidity. If you do not agree, you are
not authorized to use our product as you are too stupid."

I wonder how much cheaper that would make boats and motors?

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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:47:53 -0700 (PDT), 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?

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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...

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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?

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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?

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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****?

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

wrote in message
...
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.

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

"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

Pilot error, and Brunswick pays 3.8 mil.
 

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