Re: [OMC-Boats] prop safety

From: Andy Perakes <aperakes@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 07:47:16 -0400

I agree. Numerous independent studies have found that prop guards don't
allow the boat to properly function. They destroy efficiency, adversely
affect handling, and are vulnerable to plugging with weeds, among other
problems. I worked as a defense engineering analyst and it disgusted me
that these trials aren't in the least about what's right or wrong - what
really happened in the case of accident reconstruction - they're about money
and that's it. In states with "joint and several liability," you only need
to show the manufacturer was 1% liable then they get to foot the whole bill
because the operator almost always can't pay. Btw, one comment asked if the
kids had been drinking, but it has almost no bearing because they are
alleging a product defect. Even if they'd been blitzed to the point of near
unconsciousness, about all the defense can do is bring in an expert to
challenge the plaintiffs ability to remember events properly which is
generally little help.


Ironically I'm currently reading "The Runaway Jury" which is about the
importance of winning the first smokers suit against the tobacco companies
because that would open the floodgates for all suits. While its fiction, I
couldn't help but notice "the decision marks the first successful case
against the boating industry." Let's hope the floodgates don't start
opening and drive up the cost of boats the way they've done to cars and
planes (and.).



From: omc-boats-bounces@...
[mailto:omc-boats-bounces@...] On Behalf Of BLDFW
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:00 AM
To: Evinrude & Johnson Boats of the 1960's and 70's
Subject: Re: [OMC-Boats] prop safety


I'm really sorry for the kid and the injuries he had to endure....BUT....

I think it's crazy but as long as attorney's are permitted to shop for a
deep pocket, it will continue. They couldn't hope to get any kind of high
settlement from the boat operator so they concoct a theory in order to
justify going after the manufacturer. The individual should not have jumped
in the water and put himself in danger around a moving boat, and the
operator should have looked to the rear before putting the boat in reverse
and, as we all know you must do to stop forward momentum, rev up the engine
and thus the prop which in turn creates a reverse water flow.

It's always important to find someone else to blame and to pay for our
mistakes so that we don't have to admit we did something stupid and

Dallas, TX
1970 Evinrude Explorer - 155 Buick V6 - OMC Sterndrive


--- On Tue, 4/6/10, jd <jdood@...> wrote:

From: jd <jdood@...>
Subject: [OMC-Boats] prop safety
To: "Evinrude and 70's & Johnson Boats of the 1960's"
Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 11:44 PM

this came out today

I personally don't think the boat mfgr should have been to blame at all, no
more than a car company should be to blame when someone gets run over.
But it has made me start thinking about prop safety.

- anyone know or have any direct experience with any prop guards out there?

- the whole prop lower unit system seems goofy to me. It's this big house
of cards - if you hit something you either ruin your lower unit, or if your
lucky you break a fin off your prop. All the prop needs to do is spin
through water. So why isn't it designed with a simple cotter pin type of
system where the cotter pin breaks the second it encounters any resistance?
Am I missing something here? Cheaper, safer, could fix on the fly
just by putting in a new pin. Eh?


OMC-Boats mailing list

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tuesday, 29 July 2014 EDT