Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

[WizeOne]

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?

Yeah! Why haven't we prohibited attorneys from running for legislative office?

They are the ones who have established, in law, the 'deep pockets' philosphy. If you could not sue the one with the money, then you would be out of a job. Why do you think, that in Abe Lincolns day, lawyers were just normal tradesmen?

There was also a day, in my life, that lawyers were not allowed to advertize. Same for perscription drug companies.

 

[fishdog4449]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

This guy (driver) deserves some kind of reward for stupidity not money. This could have been prevented if he had KEPT HIS CREW ACCOUNTED FOR. People that NEED prop shrouds on their boats to prevent injuries should NOT have keys to any sort of powered vehicle. It's that simple.
I'm all for more tests/classes required for a boating license...or an IQ test.

 

[WizeOne]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

...
It may well not be right, but it is reality....

It is this kind of mentality and acceptance that all but put civilian aviation out of business.

 

[waju]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Who better to pay but Brunswick's insurance company?

I wonder if boat insurance is mandatory. If there was any, then the boat insurance should have paid.

Does this mean I'll have to put outriggers with wheels on my motorcycle in case I fall over while texting on the highway??

 

[jonesg]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

The BAR and the trial lawyers have jury selection so rigged, we are no longer able to be judged by our peers.

Once that is accomplished, the lawyers select a company to sue by their profit, assets and/or quality of insurance coverage. Then they wait for the next idiot who uses that product and gets hurt, who they deem is half-way articulate in the courtroom, and they go for it.

Our peers would have thrown this case out and had the plaintiff and lawyer pay the legal expenses for Brunswick.

With so many new lawyers entering the field, they have to find new targets or get in the unemployment line, (or run for office, LOL).

In england a jury is the first 12 through the door. Thats it.
No pre-screening or judge shopping.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

I wonder if boat insurance is mandatory. If there was any, then the boat insurance should have paid.

Does this mean I'll have to put outriggers with wheels on my motorcycle in case I fall over while texting on the highway??

Oh please tell me you were just kidding and that you don't actually text and RIDE!!!!!!

 

[achris]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Oh please tell me you were just kidding and that you don't actually text and RIDE!!!!!!

I'm taking a bet each way on this..... (Have a look at a thread about cell phones and driving... SCARY!!!! )

Off topic... Back to the court decision... Any idea when we will know if/when Brunswick appeal?

Chris......

 

[bruceb58]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Who better to pay but Brunswick's insurance company? It'll be spread over lots of policy holders, and the impact will be minimized.

You have got to be kidding me.

 

[pushnwood]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

It sounds to me like the jury decided to be practical.

Granted that it was not Brunswick's fault, he's still going to require millions of dollars of care over his lifetime, and ultimately someone has to pay for that care, regardless of whose fault it is. In the animal world, you make a mistake some predator comes by and takes care of it.
We live by different rules.

Who better to pay but Brunswick's insurance company? It'll be spread over lots of policy holders, and the impact will be minimized.

It may well not be right, but it is reality.

Thats's great , let's spread the wealth, No responsibility, no fault, screw the company with the most money/ins. Can I say, thats brilliant. Is there a sarcasm smily?

 

[achris]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Thats's great , let's spread the wealth, ....

Didn't they try that in Russia in 1917?


On a slightly different angle, does anyone know if the driver was ever charged?

 

[DavidW2009]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Yeah! Why haven't we prohibited attorneys from running for legislative office?

They are the ones who have established, in law, the 'deep pockets' philosphy. If you could not sue the one with the money, then you would be out of a job. Why do you think, that in Abe Lincolns day, lawyers were just normal tradesmen?

There was also a day, in my life, that lawyers were not allowed to advertize. Same for perscription drug companies.

Good points. It should be illegal for lawyers and career politians to hold office.

( However, off topic a bit, ape was in the pocket of the railroads. He was not poor, and his only trade was his forked tongue. He was the first of the modern day lawyer-politians, an example after which most of today's politians follow.)

If we held those in office to the higher moral code of truthfulness, there wouldn't be any lawyers holding office.

Back to the Brunswick case, imho, the driver of the boat should be held responsible. If he was a minor when this occured, then his parents would be held accountable for damages.

 

[SS MAYFLOAT]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

If prop gaurds are forced to be installed for human safety, Then passenger aircraft should have guards on the intakes of the jet engines to prevent bird injestion. After all, this would save lives....

 

[DJ]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

If prop gaurds are forced to be installed for human safety, Then passenger aircraft should have guards on the intakes of the jet engines to prevent bird injestion. After all, this would save lives....

SS,

Your trying to apply logic and common sense to a system that is illogical and nonsensical.

 

[Don S]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

SS,

Your trying to apply logic and common sense to a system that is illogical and nonsensical.

And your point?

 

[SS MAYFLOAT]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

SS,

Your trying to apply logic and common sense to a system that is illogical and nonsensical.

That is very true. Probably why I have been passed over for jury duty

 

[dingbat]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Brunswick would have to be out of their minds to appeal. As a Corporation they probably spend that much a year in toilet paper.

They've most likly have already paid twice the award in lawyer fees. An appeal would cost double the award then some. Cut your losses and move on.

 

[srimes]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Brunswick would have to be out of their minds to appeal. As a Corporation they probably spend that much a year in toilet paper.

They've most likly have already paid twice the award in lawyer fees. An appeal would cost double the award then some. Cut your losses and move on.

That's part of the problem. Not fighting bad decisions encourages more bad suites.

 

[NSBCraig]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Brunswick would be out of there minds if they did not appeal.

Stating the opposite is by and far the most of base statement ever posted on this forum.

No way have they spent that amount and that amount is actually probably enough to bankrupt them.

They are struggling to survive with lots of closed plants and laid off employees.

Just pay them some stupid number so they go away even though we aren't liable so we die in peace.


WAY TO GO BOATER!!

 

[tx1961whaler]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Brunswick would be out of there minds if they did not appeal.

Stating the opposite is by and far the most of base statement ever posted on this forum.

No way have they spent that amount and that amount is actually probably enough to bankrupt them.

They are struggling to survive with lots of closed plants and laid off employees.

Just pay them some stupid number so they go away even though we aren't liable so we die in peace.

WAY TO GO BOATER!!

Unfortunately, the only realistic (read:winnable) way for Brunswick to defend itself is to totally go after and destroy the plantiff, in this case a young guy with one leg. If he has not been in trouble before and the driver wasn't drinking or doing other drugs and this is your basic bunch of guys having a good time then Brunswick probably will not win. If Brunswick does destroy the plantiff and win, then they still lose because they are now the big Corporate bad boy.

 

[roscoe]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Brunswick would have to be out of their minds to appeal. As a Corporation they probably spend that much a year in toilet paper.

They've most likly have already paid twice the award in lawyer fees. An appeal would cost double the award then some. Cut your losses and move on.

An appeal would not result in a high award to the plaintiff. The appellate court is not a retrial. True, it could result in a retrial, but it also could result in the case being thrown out/overturned.

It would be a precedent setting ruling, blaming the manufacturer of everything.
Very dangerous waters.