This'll prob. get deleted, but...

[burleytog]

Jurors find boat manufacturer partly liable

Company ordered to pay $3.8 million in damages, medical expenses.

By Tony Plohetski

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Updated: 10:58 p.m. Monday, April 5, 2010

Published: 10:36 p.m. Monday, April 5, 2010

A federal jury Monday found a boat manufacturer partially liable for a 2005 incident on Lake Austin in which a teen's leg was severed by a propeller. Jurors ordered the company to pay $3.8 million in medical expenses and damages.

After deliberating for about seven hours, jurors found that the Brunswick Corp. shared more than half of the blame for the accident that severely injured Jacob Brochtrup, who was then 18.

Brunswick officials said in a statement after the verdict that they "stand behind our products, which are used safely and properly by boaters around the world."

Jurors found that Brochtrup also was responsible, as was the driver of the boat.

"I think they made a well thought-out, informed decision, and I think it was the right decision," said Brochtrup, now 22. "Based on the evidence that was presented, I think the case was proven pretty well."

Brochtrup 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.

The suit said that the wound to Brochtrup's leg was so large that he had lost most of his blood and that it caused his heart to stop. He had been in cardiac arrest for at least 45 minutes, and a STAR Flight helicopter delivered him to the emergency room clinically dead.

Some doctors called him a "one-in-a-million survivor."

According to the suit, the manufacturer of the boat and motor did not have safety devices, including guards or covers, to prevent Brochtrup from becoming entangled or stuck.

"While we at Brunswick remain sympathetic to the plaintiff for this unfortunate accident, we are nevertheless disappointed with today's verdict," Brunswick officials said in the statement Monday. "We will evaluate our options in this matter going forward, including a possible appeal."

Austin attorney Robby Alden, who represented Brochtrup, said the decision marks the first successful case against the boating industry by a person injured by a motor. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2002 allowed such cases to go forward.

Boat makers prevailed in two similar suits nationally that involved older-model boats, he said. And jurors in two previous trials of Brochtrup's case deadlocked, resulting in mistrials.

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.

Before the verdict, Brunswick attorney Woody Norwood of New Orleans would only say: "We are very sorry about his injury. It was a very unfortunate accident."

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 damages.

Most of the damages were for Brochtrup's past and future medical expenses. However, he also received $100,000 for his disfigurement and $264,000 for physical pain.

"I think the amounts for the award were fair," Alden said. "I'm happy about it. Hopefully, they will start making a change to protect people."

Brochtrup attended the trial and was in court for the verdict. Since his accident, he said, he has learned to live with one leg, but he hopes to receive a prosthesis soon. In recent months, he has been studying to become an audio engineer, and he plans to work in the recording industry.

"It's not what I would have wanted, but I'm just trying to enjoy life," he said.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/jurors-find-boat-manufacturer-partly-liable-527456.html

Absolutely pathetic... :

[Bass XL]

So why is Sea Ray at fault? Im not understanding...

[Jimzee]

Does that mean if I jump out of a moving car into another moving car, I can sue the car company for not making the front of the car soft enough?

Truly a sad case of stupidity.   :

[SMSRTC]

Think how much he could have gotten if he'd spilled a cup of coffee on himself as he was jumping into the water.

[I Love BassResource]

"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."

  That's the basis of the case.  I hate it for the guy, but a little common sense would have been nice..

[burleytog]

I cannot comprehend the thought process of any juror that would find the boat manufacturer at fault.

[b.Lee]

Does that mean if I jump out of a moving car into another moving car, I can sue the car company for not making the front of the car soft enough?

Truly a sad case of stupidity. :

Sorry to laugh but that was funny.

[firefightn15]

Back in the late 80's a friend of mine was tossed out of a boat when his buddy cranked the wheel and gunned it.  The prop ran his head over and killed him.  Both were drunk and Mike's parents saw it for what it was worth, a stupid accident.  No fan fare or lawsuits.....I feel sorry for the kid but I don't get it either, where is it the manufacturer's fault?

Many times kids and boats mix as well as a car load of kids; having fun, not paying attention, not understanding that there is a responsibility when having fun.

[Tin]

This has been a big local story for a few years now.

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/local_wpri_barrington_ryan_greenberg_sentencing_20090722_nek

[Stringjam]

This is why I hope I never have a jury deciding my fate.....people are getting so f'n stupid. 

[firefightn15]

This has been a big local story for a few years now.

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/local_wpri_barrington_ryan_greenberg_sentencing_20090722_nek

As kids we had "do-overs".......to bad real life doesn't have as many.

[Tin]

These dumb drunks did run-overs. While looking for their friend it was believed he was struck multiple times.

[TheBeast]

Does that mean if I jump out of a moving car into another moving car, I can sue the car company for not making the front of the car soft enough?

Truly a sad case of stupidity. :

Why would you jump in after a rope that floats, or for that matter back up and take a chance at getting the rope caught in the prop???  You just let it lay there circle around reach over the side and pick it up. 

Another case of poor little rich kids getting themselves in a mess and blaming everyone else.

[D4u2s0t]

wow!!!  i'm going to stand behind my car, have my friend hit me with it, and then sue chevy!!  lol

[moby bass]

So why is Sea Ray at fault? Im not understanding...

He who has the deepest pockets, pays.

[Sfritr]

YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID........

[KYntucky Warmouth]

you can bet that if someone backed into me with a boat and cut my leg off, the driver would be part of the lawsuit.  It just seems like more and more people are getting money for having less and less sense. 

[Tokyo Tony]

Yet another example of how this country is growing more and more anti-business.

Burley, I can't understand the jury's thought process either, but I'm willing to bet it was something like this, whether they would admit it or not: Poor kid gets his leg severed and needs money for the surgury and continuing medical care. This manufacturer was involved because it was their motor, and they have tons of money (big corporation - bad). They should pay for the medical care because they can afford it.

[South FLA]

Yet another example of how this country is growing more and more anti-business.

x1000

[TheBeast]

Yet another example of how this country is growing more and more anti-business.

Burley, I can't understand the jury's thought process either, but I'm willing to bet it was something like this, whether they would admit it or not: Poor kid gets his leg severed and needs money for the surgury and continuing medical care. This manufacturer was involved because it was their motor, and they have tons of money (big corporation - bad). They should pay for the medical care because they can afford it.

I'll go ahead and say it, that is the exact mentality that got us this new healthcare debacle and is leading to the downfall of this once great revered country.

[tyrius.]

"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."

That's the basis of the case. I hate it for the guy, but a little common sense would have been nice..

Agreed, if a safety device can be installed with little to no extra effort or loss of performance then it should be installed. You don't see circulating fans without guards anymore. The guard does not detract from the effectiveness of the fan.

The crux of the case is going to center around how the safety device would have worked.

For those of you who compare it to the Mcdonalds coffee case you may be exactly correct. McDonald's knowingly sold coffee that was significantly hotter than other restaraunts, so hot that it basically vaporized peoples skin (3rd degree burns). It was proven that they knew this and that they knew the risks and they decided that it was cost effective to pay medical damages. Their decision was based on the fact that if they sold it that hot they would have to give out less free refills so the money they saved on the free refills more than made up for the money they spent paying medical damages.  So, they knowingly sold an unsafe product. Why shouldn't they be punished for that?

If this case is the same then the same standard would apply. We'll never know that from a simple article though. If not, then the verdict will be tossed on appeal and no one will ever hear about it being overturned.

[A-Jay]

The final ruling concerning the whole unfortunate situation is as bizarre as it is sad.

A-Jay

[SimonSays]

Not that I agree with the decision or anything, but ... why can't they put safety devices like the fan guards over a prop? It'd probably save a few lives and prevent prop damage.

[Siebert Outdoors]

I read the post pretty quick but here are a couple questions

1. How was the person hit? Was he diving or skiing? Was it properly marked to TX law?

2. The jokes on cars hitting you and suing the car manufacture is now opened up is it not?

There is only one person at fault if #1 was done to law, its the boat drivers fault.  This is a prime example of there being no personal responsibility anymore.  Its always "someone elses fault"

That beer made me drunk so can I sue the beer company for crashing my truck?

[Tin]

Not that I agree with the decision or anything, but ... why can't they put safety devices like the fan guards over a prop? It'd probably save a few lives and prevent prop damage.

Because you loose speed and a hole shot.  :