Brunswick marine found 66% liable :(

[marlboro180]

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?

Nope, pretty well nailed it right there. Litigious America.

 

[cougar1985]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

this is strictly my personal opion and in no way reflects the opion of this site or any others,lol. the lawyer and client who brought this suit foward should be arrested for grand stupidty and the jury for idiotsy.if brunswick doesnt appeal this all the way to the supreme court they too should be charged with stupidity.so when they selected this jury did they base their selections on their ability to put blame on everybody else but the 2 morons involved in the said stupidity?im totally amazed and frankyl a little pissed that a jury could come to a conclusion so wrong .

 

[funk6294]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

The big bad corportations again??? First Yamaha with the rhinos that tip over on thier own, then the toyota cars for uncontrolably speeding down the freeway, and now boats that mame inocent passengers??? Where does all of this end?? Lets all move into caves and have no technology, oh wait someone will sue mother nature for a rock falling on thier head.

 

[Dave Barnett]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Pitiful! I could do a long wind breezer here but I wont. It would seem that our leaders could see that this sort of thing is aiding in the downfall of our country and the world. Oh well prophecy in action. Still sad to see though. My bent? NO safety devices will ever replace intelligence! People like this guy will likely die from suffocating on the bubble wrap they encase themselves in.

 

[Tyme2fish]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

This verdict is good news for me.

I can now drop my boat liability insurance and my personal umbrella liability insurance because no accident caused by negligence on my part will be my liability.

 

[DavidW2009]

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).

 

[DECK SWABBER 58]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

"wakeboarding with three friends
Brochtrup jumped out of the boat to grab the line. Unaware that Brochtrup was in the water behind him, 18-year-old driver Patrick Houston put his family's boat in reverse."

One of the first rules of water skiing, tubing, wakeboarding, ect.
is that their should always be someone other then the driver facing the
back of the boat watching the skier. Was the 3rd guy in the water?
If so, the watcher was the one injured.

Assuming he was going to watch while the 3rd guy wakeboarded,
it was HIS responsibility to inform the driver that he was going in
the water after the rope.

This is exactly why ladders cost so much.

 

[shep247]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

I too, agree that this is an unwarranted lawsuit. Obviously user error. Though I have also wondered why there is not some sort of chicken wire-like shroud on propellers. I understand they hurt performance, would probably look pretty odd, and wouldn't protect against severed fingers and such, but if they can save someone's limb, it seems like something worth looking into. But this comes without knowing much about hydrodynamics and how a shroud would effect the efficiency of a propeller.

 

[srimes]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

I had a dog jump out of the back of my pickup once. I should sue GMC 'cause they didn't include a cage or leash to keep the dog in.


This is also why health care gets more expensive each year.

 

[JustJason]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Man o man, anybody who does tow sports know's the spotter never takes his eyes off the man in the water, and the driver always approaches the man in the water on the drivers starboard side, and never in reverse.
There are 2 sides to every story, so I wonder what the deal with this was. If the laywers basis was no "prop guard", why didn't Mercury dispute that with it's own technical experts....
It will be interesting to see if this is appealed.

 

[kend301]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

I am really wondering why there is no mention of insurance in this case , It may not be required but it is available everywhere . This decision is so wrong There is no way it will stand .

 

[tx1961whaler]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Here's how it goes:

(Lawyer): So, you make a dangerous product with spinning razor sharp blades on it that could easily chop someone's limb off?
(Company): We make outdoor recreational equipment that is.....
(Lawyer): Yes or No please.
(Company): Yes, our boats have propellers
(Lawyer): Razor Sharp propellers?
(Company): I would not describe them as "Razor Sharp"
(Lawyer): How would you describe them, if not "Razor Sharp"?
(Company): Our propellers are designed to industry standards that have evolved over... (blah, blah - boring tech crap speech follows, jury snoozes)
(Lawyer): So they can cut a person in the water?
(Company): If misused.
(Lawyer): Like a Razor?
(Company): Not exactly...
(Lawyer): More like a chainsaw?
(Company): No, more like a propeller!
<jury chuckles>
(Lawyer): So, are there any possible ways to protect someone in the water from your dangerous, spinning Razor Blades?
(Defense): Objection. (insert legal term)
(Judge): Sustained. Rephrase your question.
(Lawyer): So, are there any possible ways to protect someone in the water from your ..............Propelllllllleeerrrrrrs? (grins cleverly)
(Company): There have been studies made by.....
(Lawyer): Yes or No?
(Company): Yes it it technically possible, but not feasible.
(Lawyer): It is possible?
(Company): But not feasible.
(Lawyer): Why is it not feasible?
(Company): Due to technical restraints of propeller and boat design... (another long winded tech explanation follows. The jury doodles...)
(Lawyer): But it's possible
(Company): But not feasible.
(Lawyer): It's not "feasible" that you protect innocent people from your.......Propelllllllleeerrrrrrs?
(Company): It's not feasible.
(Lawyer): But it's possible?
(Company): It's not feasible.
(Lawyer): Yes or No?
(Company): Yes, it's possible, but not feasible.
(Lawyer): So, the Company has deliberately decided to market a product that it knows can be made safer?
(Company): No, it is not feasible to make it safer.
(Lawyer): Ever hear of a product called a "Prop Guard/Shark Cage" ?<hold up huge picture of some wacko invention> and walks around.
(Company): Yes we have seen it, but.....
(Lawyer): So you agree the this "Prop Guard" could make your product safer?
(Company): It may, but it's not feasible to include anything like this on our motors because (more tech babble....)
(Lawyer): But it would make the product safer?
(Company): It is not feasible to put....
(Lawyer): But it IS POSSIBLE !?
(Company): Yes, but.....
(Lawyer): SO, it IS POSSIBLE to make your motors safer, but you DELIBERATELY CHOSE to IGNORE items that were not......."feasible" because of some minor technical or cost issues?
(Company): We make every attempt to provide the safest product to our customers.....
(Lawyer): Tell that to one of your "customers" sitting there! <pointing to one legged boy with ragged stump visible>
(Defense): OBJECTION!
(Lawyer): No more questions.
(Judge): You may leave the stand.

Game over.

 

[fishrdan]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Here's how it goes:........................................................................................................Game over.

A good lawyer could paint Smokey the Bear as an arsonist

 

[PW2]

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.

 

[DavidW2009]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

PW2: "It may well not be right, but it is reality."

We can see what will happen to recreational boating if this stuff continues. Just look at what lawyers did to the cost of private small aircraft. Look at what lawyers did to the cost of medical care (healthcare). The result will be the same for boating. Fewer people will be able to afford to participate.

(But that's probably okay with the elite and the PTB. Fewer small craft to get in the way of their yachts.)

PWC may be next, or maybe it's already happened.

Companies like Brunswick need to have aggressive, take no prisoners defence. Like shift the blame to public education for producing stupid people.

 

[Huron Angler]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Companies like Brunswick need to have aggressive, take no prisoners defence. Like shift the blame to public education for producing stupid people.

Agreed. I personally believe we should have very strict IQ tests for all sorts of things like operating moving vehicles, voting, reproducing, etc.

 

[JRJ]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Agreed. I personally believe we should have very strict IQ tests for all sorts of things like operating moving vehicles, voting, reproducing, etc.

Exactly

 

[JustJason]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

I wonder if the state that it happened in requires small craft pilots to take a "boaters education class" to get a small craft pilots liscence?
For example, in Massachusettes you do not need a license or take any classes. 3 miles to my north, in New Hampshire, you do need to take classes and pass written tests before they issue you a boaters license.

 

[cougar1985]

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.

why the hell should brunswicks insurance company have to pay for a kids stupidity?thats exactly whats wrong with the thought process of way too many people today,no personal responsibility!if brunswick doesnt appeal they deserve everything they get!let the kids parents pay the cost of his care their the ones that raised a stupid child.that jury needs to be sterilezed so they never reproduce .thats why id make a crappy juror,i wouldnt fall for all the legal mumbo jumbo ,id use commen sence and common sence tells me those boaters were a collection of idiots.

 

[Capt Craig]

Re: Brunswick marine found 66% liable

Just another example that there should be some kind of REQUIRED education program before we let people operate boats. We do it for cars and there are lines already painted on the roads. There should be education teaching people ROW rules and safe boating standards like stay away from the prop and don't drive over people.

Guess now we will need back-up alarms like commercial equipment have so swimmers will know to swim out of the way as there is a dumb a%& about to back over them...