Re: [OMC-Boats] prop safety

From: jd <jdood@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:04:01 -0700

as the winning lawyer stated:

Alden said he sought to show jurors that manufacturers could make
boats and motors safer by installing guards on propellers and placing
a shield over the back. The concept for a device was created years
ago, he said, but the industry has resisted adopting it.

and this gem:
According to Monday's decision, Brunswick was 66 percent responsible
for the accident, and Brochtrup and the boat's driver each were 17
percent liable. The driver wasn't part of the suit and will pay no

So Mercury was a target to make an example out of in hopes of changing
an industry. And the driver wasn't even named in the suit. So
obviously the injured kid just couldn't in good conscious put any
blame on his buddy the driver....because afterall, it was an
accident right? Accidents happen, it wasn't the poor drivers
fault. And either the driver probably had insurance that already
paid him a bunch of money and he wanted more from somewhere, or
worse, the driver DIDN'T have insurance. Either way, it's all
about going after whomever has the deepest pockets, not whose at
fault. Ridiculous.

On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:47 AM, Andy Perakes wrote:

> 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 costly.....
> -Bill
> 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" <omc-boats@...
> >
> 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?
> jeff
> _______________________________________________
> OMC-Boats mailing list
> OMC-Boats@...
> _______________________________________________
> OMC-Boats mailing list
> OMC-Boats@...
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010

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