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


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

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.

"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

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.

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...

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.

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.

"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

"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.