Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

R

rbh

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
7,939
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Thats crud, how can you get away with suing and winning a case like that!!
who can I suit, because I HAVE ALLERGIES TO GRASS AND POLLEN IN THE SPRING!!!!!, mother nature, I bet some lawyer would take that case.
 
Huron Angler

Huron Angler

Admiral
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
6,025
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Brunswick should not be liable for a person driving a boat into another person. This seems like a very poor ruling in my humble opinion.

This will be a slippery slope...should cars all come equipped with cowcatchers to avoid running over people or should the drivers watch where they are going?:rolleyes::confused::(
 
ezmobee

ezmobee

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
23,767
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

I hear that prop-driven boats work awesome with the prop completely encased in a "safety shroud". :rolleyes:
 
QC

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Careful with this one guys. Very appropriate discussion, but let's not turn this into a lawyer/legal system bashfest please.
 
trendsetter240

trendsetter240

Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,458
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Doesn't make any sense to me. What type of guard are they talking about?

Sounds like both the driver and the victim made stupid mistakes. #1 don't jump off the back of a moving boat. #2 Look behind you before you reverse.

What am I missing here?
 
J

JRJ

Commander
Joined
Sep 11, 2001
Messages
2,992
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Ridiculous as it is, a jury found Brunswick liable. You never know for sure what a jury will do.
The look on the plaintiff lawyers face when no money was awarded by the last jury I served on, made my jury duty seem worthwhile :D
 
angus63

angus63

Captain
Joined
May 20, 2002
Messages
3,726
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Much like a coffee cup that is labeled "Caution: Contents may be extremely hot", transoms will now have labels "Caution: This vessel is equipped with a reverse gear" and then all manufacturer liability is lifted.

See.........Problem solved...





I'm in the wrong profession
 
achris

achris

More fish than mountain goat
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
27,468
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Oh boy!!!

Sounds like a lot of stupid mistakes were made.... Not least by the courts for even allowing the case to proceed! :rolleyes:

Does this mean I can sue the manufacturers of my skis for the rotator cuff injury I got last July? :D:D:D
 
NelsonQ

NelsonQ

Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
1,413
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Here is the key to the success..
" During the latest trial, which began last week, 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."

All the needs to be is a reasonable safeguard that's designed and/or patented and proof that players in the industry were approached with the concept.

Whether it would work or not, is irrelevant as the courts see it as a possible safeguard.

Still disagree with the outcome, but see how it got there
 
SS MAYFLOAT

SS MAYFLOAT

Admiral
Joined
May 17, 2001
Messages
6,372
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Just crazy. Blame the manufacture and not the boat operator. How about the ski rope manufacture for having defective fittings? If the rope hadn't come undone, then the kid wouldn't have had to jump in.

I wonder if it was a case where the kid was behind a land based vehicle and then was backed over, would the manfacture be blamed or the operator charged? Of course we all know it would be the operator. Geeesh its ashame he got hurt, but the only one to blame is the operator in my opinion.
 
tallcanadian

tallcanadian

Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
3,250
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

User error. It's not the boats fault. It's the same thing as a smoker suing a tobacco because he or she gets cancer. These cases shouldn't even be heard. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
DavidW2009

DavidW2009

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
272
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

ezmobee said:
I hear that prop-driven boats work awesome with the prop completely encased in a "safety shroud". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Prop shrouds have been around a while. The CSS Hunley had one, 1864.
 

Attachments

  • diagram1.jpg
    diagram1.jpg
    17.8 KB · Views: 0
J

jonesg

Admiral
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
7,198
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

It takes unmitigated gall but theres plenty of that going around.
They should appeal this to the supreme court.
 
Thajeffski

Thajeffski

Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
890
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

jonesg said:
It takes unmitigated gall but theres plenty of that going around.
They should appeal this to the supreme court.
Click to expand...

I absolutely would.

The amount of people in this world who won't admit it was their fault is amazing.

Lets see, 18 year old kids, on a boat, nice day out, WONDER if there was any booze on board.

No matter what, I don't understand how a boat manf. can be held responsible for a DRIVER of a boat putting the motor in reverse and chewing up his friend.

The jury must be full of total idiots who don't believe in personal responsibility and have never owned a boat in their life!
 
QC

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

Personally I'd really like to understand the Jury instructions, etc. Generally speaking, if things don't make sense, there is missing information. On the other hand, we all know of seemingly stupid Jury decisions . . .
 
j_martin

j_martin

Admiral
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
7,474
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

SS MAYFLOAT said:
Just crazy. Blame the manufacture and not the boat operator. How about the ski rope manufacture for having defective fittings? If the rope hadn't come undone, then the kid wouldn't have had to jump in.

I wonder if it was a case where the kid was behind a land based vehicle and then was backed over, would the manfacture be blamed.
Click to expand...

Of course, tires should be completely shrouded.:D

Prop protectors have been around for a long time. They protect props, and are not considered a safety device. They also have a pretty large performance price.
 
roscoe

roscoe

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
21,751
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

It took 3 juries to get the guilty verdict.
Funny thing about juries, they are overturned on appeals all the time.

This is a very slippery slope and a very dangerous precedent if allowed to stand.

If the mentioned "safeguards" are so effective, why would it be the boat /engine manufacturers be responsible for them, why not the boat owner?

And why hasn't any other company brought them to market? Simple, it would be admitting there is a danger - and implying that their product would eliminate it. Opening the company up to even further liability for producing a defective safety device.

Yep, now all bicycles will become quad-cycles so you can't tip over and hit the pavement, and have gearing to limit their speed to 1 mph so you can't hit a tree branch.
 
D

DJ

Guest
Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

It's very simple.

Somebody got maimed.

Somebody is broke=Kid that put engine in reverse.

Somebody has resources=BRUNSWICK!

Somebody gets paid 30%+ of settlement/judgement=ATTORNEY!

Any questions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top