Pensacola Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have not able to visit PFF site much in the last few weeks so I don't know if this has been posted or not. If not, thought this may be of interest. I saw it on another forum that I watch.

<SPAN class=postbody>There was a 3.8 million dollar award agains Brunswick (Sea Ray/Mercury). This may be reversed upon appeal, but it is something which we should all be aware of. I am quoting part of the article from Statesman.com:
"Brochtrup (the 18 year old injured) sued Sea Ray Boats Inc. and Mercury Marine ? Brunswick is their parent company ? in 2007, saying they were liable for his injury.

He had been celebrating the July Fourth weekend wakeboarding with three friends at Emma Long Metropolitan Park when the accident happened. Brochtrup had just finished his turn on the wakeboard when a tow rope popped off the back of the white Sea Ray ski boat.

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.

The propeller caught the top of Brochtrup's right leg and twisted it around, chopping deep into flesh, muscle and bone."

As in many marine cases, there was a percentage liability from each party--the driver of the boat who put it in reverse (17%), the person who was injured by jumping into the water to retrive a tow ine (17%) and Brunswick who did not put a propreller guard over the prop of this boat ( 66% liability).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,790 Posts
Who knew that you can't jump off the tramsome with the boat in reverse?:banghead:banghead:banghead

I can't believe they were found liable at all. IMO the guy that jumped off the back of the boat is 100% liable. Next I take my boat out I'm telling everyone on board no one is allowed to jump in the water without permision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Orion45 (4/9/2010)Can't fix "stupid". Also, we need tort reform.
AMEN BROTHER! Just think how much less expensive things would be if the manufacturers <U>were not</U> held liable for someone else's stupidity!:doh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
This was a test case. The industry has been urged for years to provide saftey guards on marine engine propellers. Granted, it would add to the cost of the rig, about 5.70 to the manufacturer. But ask Rundover if he would agree that it would be a good idea for boat props to have guards.

Brunswik was order to pay 3.8 million to the injured. They likely paid their legal team and in-house counsels at least that much if not more trying not to pay the injured man. They could have made a lof of prop guards for that amount of money and look how many injuries could have been avoided.

This case is not over yet. It will be appealed until the injured person is either old or dead. Thenthe prop guard issuedwill be a dead issue again until some kid gets run over by a drunk and is killed. Then there will be another lawsuit that will include another boat or engine manufacturer.

Tort reform? If it were not for the Plaintiff attorneys holding manufactureres responsible, the manufacuterers would do whatever they wanted to do, with as little saftey concern as they could get by with. Case in point, the recent mine catastrophe. The mine owners knew they were in violation of all kind of safety issues but they ignored them. The mine inspectors let the violations slide, but now, families have lost their loved ones, and it will be the Plaintiff attorneys who make the mine owners pay for wrongful deaths. They will be forced to clean up their act and be good corporate citizens, because they now will realize that it is too expensive to be cheap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
We MUST have Tort reform..just $$$ limits onhow much you can sue for.. Millions $$$ for hot coffee??? :hoppingmad if we have any chance of lowering healthcare costs... if there were limits they wouldn't need an expensive in house legal team = better products/services for less $$$$$
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
The OLE Personal Responsibility.

Hey while the Lawyers are suing the boat manufacturers for no prop guard they need to sue car manufactures also. (JK) . My point is. people and pets can be run over by the tires of vehicles. Maybe the car manufactures should put the wedge device infront of the tires like a train has on the locomotive. Hey I'm going to sue HotPoint appliances. I was cooking on my stove top and went to reach into the cabinet above the stove, while doing that I had to put my hand on the stove to reach what I was after. While I put my hand on the stove I burnt it pretty bad. I sure wish there would have been a heat guard on the top of the stove. Hey there is no warning label stating that the surface will burn you if you come in contact with it.

I don't know if the sign is still there. A couple years ago I was driving through Beulah and someone had made a homemade sign that read," Save AMERICA Burn a Law School". That is sooo true now-a-days. Now of course I'm being sarcastic about the stove and the autos, but they are the same scenerios.

I guess I can go swimming trough P'cola Pass on a Sat. , yea right in the shipping channel. Maybe on of those props will hit me and I can sue the Boat and Engine Manufacturer. Hey, maybe I can sue the CG for not posting " NO Swimming" signs near the channel. The no swimming signs need to posted in Spanish too. Just when you think you've heard it all something like this lawsuit come up. I know in a vehicle , I was told to look before backing. I bet the operator of the vessel has not successfully completed a boat safety course. Just my .02.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,272 Posts
fishn4real (4/10/2010)This was a test case. The industry has been urged for years to provide saftey guards on marine engine propellers. Granted, it would add to the cost of the rig, about 5.70 to the manufacturer. But ask Rundover if he would agree that it would be a good idea for boat props to have guards.

Brunswik was order to pay 3.8 million to the injured. They likely paid their legal team and in-house counsels at least that much if not more trying not to pay the injured man.

This case is not over yet. It will be appealed until the injured person is either old or dead.

Tort reform?

"If it were not for the Plaintiff attorneys holding manufactureres responsible, the manufacuterers would do whatever they wanted to do, with as little saftey concern as they could get by with."
I agree 100% with Mitch! The various associations, like the AMA make sure the press makes everyone aware when a lawsuit is settled for the plaintiff when some uncaring, incompetent physician has damaged this person.

If it were not for attorneys representing injured persons, they would walk away, Scot Free! Tort reform should include dishonest justice systems, like in Baldwin County, AL where there has not been a medical malpractice lawsuit settled for the plaintiff in over 24 years. The inept, uncaring alpha hotel who almost killed me has had 8 medical malpractice lawsuit filed against him in the last five years. I have been told that the presiding judge in Baldwin County has stated publicly that there will never be a medical malpractice settled in favor of the plaintiff while he is on the bench. Of course, this is heresay, but how many doctors have had 8 lawsuits in 5 years? I know Doctors who practiced medicine for over 30 years and NEVER had a lawsuit filed against them. WHY? Because they were competent, caring professional physicians who practiced medicine properly.

I have always believed that professionals, manufacturors, the private sector and government would practice according to our Christian principles and existing law. Some do, some do not! Without lawyers we would be trampled by greedy, incompetent firms. I found that not all lawyers are genuine in their practice also. Names available on PM request.

:hoppingmad
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,905 Posts
Orion is right, can't fix stupid. The operator of the boat has sole responsibility for the safety of passengers and the vessel. Unless this boat jumped into gear and hunted the unfortunate victim down by automatically shifting into auto pilot, how do you blame the manufacturer of the boat? It is a shame that in America it is becoming common for someone to take an unfortunate mishap created by their own poor choices and try to turn it into personal gain at the expense of others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,790 Posts
Yeah I guess the driver could be seen as resposible, I just can't stand the idea of someone jumping off of a boat to retrieve something. I mean, If I'm offshore fishing a wreck or inshore fishing a spot and drop something overboard I swing the boat around and pick it up with a hook poll, andI damn sure don't jump in the water unless there is no other choice. Then again they were wake boarding.:doh

IMO any "water sport" is inherently dangerous and life threatening. I won't pull skiers, tubers, or any of that stupid crap with one of my boats. It's dangerous and serves no point. If we ain't cathin' fish, working, or going from point A to point B the boat stays at the dock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Poor guy...never had a chance. That evil boat manf. must pay!! In fact the Metro. Park should pay too because they know water sports are hazardous, and still they allowed this poor victim to endanger himself. Im not sure where this body of water is located, but the state is also responsible. It is certainly reckless of them to allow such dangerous places to exist within the confines of their state. And lets not forget the federal govt.. They too should be held liable. It is their obligation to keep us safe from such danger, Was the prop. aluminum..the aluminum people are just to irresponsible ..they must pay!!And the fiberglass people, and the evil gas company that provided the fuel for the boat and tow vehicle. etc...etc...:hoppingmad
 

·
Jim T's sworn enemy!
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? How big of a boat could this thing possibly be that Stupid#1(driver) didn't see Stupid #2(jumper) go in after a rope and then for who knows what reason Stupid#1 drops the engine in reverse? The answer: There Stupid! And these morons actually got paid for this! :hoppingmad

Heck,my new engine has developed a minor oil leak,not much,just a drop here and there but its still a leak and its killin me! I'm upset,will probably needs months of councilling and years of medication. I think i'll file suit against Brunswick,parent company of Mercury,makers of the Black Devil and Genmar,parent company of Wellcraft,builders of the Anti-Christ of boats! With the crack legal team over at WuTangClan and Associates I should get somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 friggin Million and live out the rest of my days in a Cape Horn! :withstupid
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Sorry Sea Monkey..I didnt see your post before I posted mine. I was blinded by rage I suppose, It seems we are like minded on such matters!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
Most lawsuit negligence awards are based upon the premise of "what a reasonable person" would anticipate. The boat manufacuterer could reasonably have anticipated that a person might come in contact with a moving boat propeller.

In this particular case the driver of the boat who backed up, a teenager, who was all excited and fired up with adrenalin for a lot of reasons, was not a part of this lawsuit and was not held liable for damages.

Another case in point on Planitiff lawyers forcing Big Business to take responsibility for their actions is the recent Toyota sticking pedal issue. No Plaintiff lawyers, Toyota would still be pushing these defective automobiles to the public. Anyone on here get a re-call notice on this defect?

And the large scale verdict on the hot coffe issue: McDonalds had a promotion in effect that advertised all of the coffee you can drink - unlimited refills - for one low price. All McDonalds managers had standing orders to increase the temperature of the coffee to a high temperature (I don't recall the exact temperature but it was at scalding level) to reduce the amount of coffee that customers would drink in a period of time. In other words "let's have a promo that advertises unlimited refills but make it so hot that they will not drink much of it due to having to let it cool down. This is what is considered an unconciouniable act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
fishn4real (4/10/2010)This was a test case. The industry has been urged for years to provide saftey guards on marine engine propellers. Granted, it would add to the cost of the rig, about 5.70 to the manufacturer. But ask Rundover if he would agree that it would be a good idea for boat props to have guards.

Brunswik was order to pay 3.8 million to the injured. They likely paid their legal team and in-house counsels at least that much if not more trying not to pay the injured man. They could have made a lof of prop guards for that amount of money and look how many injuries could have been avoided.

This case is not over yet. It will be appealed until the injured person is either old or dead. Thenthe prop guard issuedwill be a dead issue again until some kid gets run over by a drunk and is killed. Then there will be another lawsuit that will include another boat or engine manufacturer.

Tort reform? If it were not for the Plaintiff attorneys holding manufactureres responsible, the manufacuterers would do whatever they wanted to do, with as little saftey concern as they could get by with. Case in point, the recent mine catastrophe. The mine owners knew they were in violation of all kind of safety issues but they ignored them. The mine inspectors let the violations slide, but now, families have lost their loved ones, and it will be the Plaintiff attorneys who make the mine owners pay for wrongful deaths. They will be forced to clean up their act and be good corporate citizens, because they now will realize that it is too expensive to be cheap.


Do you really think this is the first mine accident where there was a record of previous safety violations?

Fact- Massey Energy, the parent company of the Upper Big Branch mine, where the recent accident occured, also was the parent company at the Aracoma mine where a fire killed 12 miners in 2005. They settled after that disaster for the largest settlement in mining history. The plantiff's attorneys got rich, the families of the victims got some compensation, but it obviously DID NOT change the actions of the parent company. You should check your facts before spouting off aboutthe (your?)gloriuos profession of ambulance chasing. It does not seem to have changed the practice of coal mining yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
Whatwe need is more Engineers, Doctors, farmers, business owners, NO moreLawyers & CPA"s ... why do Unions and lawyers vote democrat... a witch's brew of the devil :hoppingmad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
This whole world is ruled by lawsuits and litigation. I for one do believe in most safety precautions but you have to be responsible for your own stupidity. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize a dangerous situation and then NOT move into it. Pretty soon it will be mandantory to have a safety sheild around a hammer head to keep some stupid f*&k from smashing his own thumb, there will be railings on both sides of every street, road, and highway to keep some dumbass from stepping off the curb intp traffic, every item that can be picked up will have to have a SAFETY lanyard so it will be impossible to drop it and smash your toes. The world is a dangerous place. You can burn your hand on a hot stove/pot, you could choke on your toothbrush, you could drown yourself with a glass of water, you could put your eye out with your coffe stir stick, blah, blah, blah, until the judges start throwing out these frivolous cases and recognize that people are responsible/accountable for their own safetyit will only get worse. The freak cases that occur where people are injured are accidents for the most part.

I am a building contractor and witnessed a worker on an 8 ft step ladder working on an AC system. When he backed down the ladder he stepped off before he made it to the bottom step. Thinking he was stepping of onto the ground he was surprised to find out he had another 2 ft to go. He lost his footing and fell the 2 ft and went head first into the concrete wall and busted his head wide open. He is sueing the ladder manufacturer for failure to have a warning system in place to stop this from happening. Can't wait to see how this turns out. It will probably be won. Sorry that he was hurt but it was his fault alone for not paying proper attention to what he was doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
fishn4real (4/10/2010)This was a test case. The industry has been urged for years to provide saftey guards on marine engine propellers. Granted, it would add to the cost of the rig, about 5.70 to the manufacturer. But ask Rundover if he would agree that it would be a good idea for boat props to have guards.

Brunswik was order to pay 3.8 million to the injured. They likely paid their legal team and in-house counsels at least that much if not more trying not to pay the injured man. They could have made a lof of prop guards for that amount of money and look how many injuries could have been avoided.

This case is not over yet. It will be appealed until the injured person is either old or dead. Thenthe prop guard issuedwill be a dead issue again until some kid gets run over by a drunk and is killed. Then there will be another lawsuit that will include another boat or engine manufacturer.

Tort reform? If it were not for the Plaintiff attorneys holding manufactureres responsible, the manufacuterers would do whatever they wanted to do, with as little saftey concern as they could get by with. Case in point, the recent mine catastrophe. The mine owners knew they were in violation of all kind of safety issues but they ignored them. The mine inspectors let the violations slide, but now, families have lost their loved ones, and it will be the Plaintiff attorneys who make the mine owners pay for wrongful deaths. They will be forced to clean up their act and be good corporate citizens, because they now will realize that it is too expensive to be cheap.
Tort reform does not mean manufacturers would run roughshod over consumer rights.It meansreformingcurrent legalpractices to prevent verdicts such as these to be made.You can't fix stupid nor can you idiot proofeverything.Common sense should tell you that the two culprits in this case are the injured party and the boat operator.Were I toback over a pedestrian, should the maker of my vehicle also be liable?

I find it amazing to see how quick you are to lay the blame onthe corporations exclusively. Case in point, the recent mine disaster which you immediately attributed to the greed ofmine owners without any evidence to back your accusations. Wait for the accident report before you assign the blame. Also, ask yourselfhow liable are the government inspectors and the unions in these deaths?
 

·
Neptune calls me "Daddy"
Joined
·
9,137 Posts
Orion45 (4/11/2010

I find it amazing to see how quick you are to lay the blame onthe corporations exclusively. Case in point, the recent mine disaster which you immediately attributed to the greed ofmine owners without any evidence to back your accusations. Wait for the accident report before you assign the blame. Also, ask yourselfhow liable are the government inspectors and the unions in these deaths?


There are a lot of things my union does that I do NOT agree with. But I GUARANTEE you the SAFETY of union members(and the flying public)is not negotiable. I assume it's the same with miners, though I have no close knowledge. For all their faults, unions have a place.Keeping the workplace SAFEis the most important thing a union does for it's members. Unless a leader ignored his members because he was getting kickbacks(certainly not unheard of, but that would be his fault, not the organization), I'd not expect the union was to blame for any part of this.

Jim
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top