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

[slonezp]

Ridiculous! According to the article there is no way the manufacture is responsible, unless the boat was custom made for Steven King and its name is Christine.

How can a company be negligent for not installing a safety device that is not required by law or is not the industry standard?

The boat operator is solely responsible ...End of story.

If I am on the water with passengers on my boat It is my responsibility to make sure I have enough life jackets, that my boat is in a condition that is safe to operate, that I operate the boat in a safe manor, that I am aware of all my surroundings, AND that my passengers have some knowledge of what risks may be involved and not a bunch of frickin idiots. I am the captain.

They were suing for medical payments. I did not see in the article was the boat owner /operator insured? That's a bozo nono.

I hope SeaRay appeals and wins

and SimonSays,

Why do we need to put safety devices on everything? Heres a thought. EDUCATE people on how to operate a boat responsibly. I have to pass a test on how to drive a car. Why not a boat? There are no lanes or signals on water, there is no speed limit on many waters. If a 30ft Checkmate flies by a 14ft jon boat who's gonna win that situation. Seems to me there are many more hazards on the water than on land. The biggest problem is you can't teach COMMON SENSE.

[bilgerat]

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

You're using logic and common sense, which has no place in the universe of attorneys, judges and juries.

Back in 1980, my friend's girlfriend attempted to board a slow moving freight train, resulting in the loss of her legs. Alcohol was a factor. She survived, and her family succesfully sued the railroad. That make any sense to anyone out there ??? :-?

[SimonSays]

Because you loose speed and a hole shot.  :

This makes no sense.

and SimonSays,

Why do we need to put safety devices on everything? Heres a thought. EDUCATE people on how to operate a boat responsibly. I have to pass a test on how to drive a car. Why not a boat? There are no lanes or signals on water, there is no speed limit on many waters. If a 30ft Checkmate flies by a 14ft jon boat who's gonna win that situation. Seems to me there are many more hazards on the water than on land. The biggest problem is you can't teach COMMON SENSE.

Sounds like a good idea, but why not put a safety device on it in addition to educating people?

[slonezp]

"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.

According to your statement McDonalds had intent.

According to your logic Sea Ray is purposely not installing guards to increase profit. Doesn't make sense. There are no laws or industry standards which require these devices to be installed. You stated McD's coffee was hotter than the industry standard which is where your arguement for intent comes from.

How can you base a lawsuit on the way the safety device could have worked? The boat was working the way it was designed to. If the safety device was installed and failed it is a different story.

[SimonSays]

According to your logic Sea Ray is purposely not installing guards to increase profit. Doesn't make sense.

Profit from damaged prop sales of course! ;D :

[tyrius.]

According to your logic Sea Ray is purposely not installing guards to increase profit. Doesn't make sense.

Not my logic and also not my point.  From the article.

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.

Apparently devices exist that would have prevented this injury.  The reason behind those devices not being used would be central to the case.  With only a single article to go off of it's impossible to tell if that device would have worked, would have been cost effective, etc. but it is possible so the case can not be dismissed out of hand.

There are no laws or industry standards which require these devices to be installed.

That's not relevant.

[VABassin'14]

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

Don't do that, GM doesn't have any money of its own to start with.

[slonezp]

According to your logic Sea Ray is purposely not installing guards to increase profit. Doesn't make sense.

Not my logic and also not my point. From the article.

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.

Apparently devices exist that would have prevented this injury. The reason behind those devices not being used would be central to the case. With only a single article to go off of it's impossible to tell if that device would have worked, would have been cost effective, etc. but it is possible so the case can not be dismissed out of hand.

There are no laws or industry standards which require these devices to be installed.

That's not relevant.

Then why not hold ALL boat and motor mfgs responsible like they did the with tobacco industry lawsuits.

[SuskyDude]

Come on guys, no one should be responsible for their own actions, this is America!

[tyrius.]

Then why not hold ALL boat and motor mfgs responsible like they did the with tobacco industry lawsuits.

Because this is one single case with one single claimant.  The claimant can not sue a manufacturer that did not even make the product that injured them.  Any other manufacturer can not be responsible for the injury due to the fact that they nor their product was involved.

And, as a caveat, I'm not really saying that the decision in this case is correct.  I'm just pointing out that it is possible that the decision is correct.  It isn't something that can be dismissed out of hand.  I also do not know anything about how a safety device would even work or if it's even feasible to install.

[done]

Just stupid. The guys jumps out of the boat, into the area near the engine. The driver puts the boat into reverse and runs him over, but the manufacturer is 60% responsible for that stupidity?

I am no engineer but i would think putting a guard around a prop would have a significant impact in drag, as well as the mechanics of the water around the prop as to significantly impact the performance. I flat out would not buy a boat with one. Instead I would try to NOT run over my passengers.

Just stupidity.

[tyrius.]

Just stupid. The guys jumps out of the boat, into the area near the engine. The driver puts the boat into reverse and runs him over, but the manufacturer is 60% responsible for that stupidity?

Agreed, this doesn't make a lot of sense.  It may have to do with a requirement that in order to pay the party has to be primarily (greater than 50%) responsible.  Seems odd to me that even if a safety device is feasible that the manufacturer would be anything more than SLIGHTLY responsible.

These people were definately old enough that they should have known what they were doing.  Who backs up to pick up a skier anyways?

[slonezp]

Instead I would try to NOT run over my passengers.

Just stupidity.

You just take the fun out of everything.

[slonezp]

Riddle me this Batman, if a drunk driver injurs or kills someone they are now partially responsible for the accident. The technology is there to install a breathalyzer on the ignition to prevent the vehicle from starting thus preventing the accident.

They should know better.

Almost makes it worthwhile to drink and drive. Jackpot!

Sea Ray needs to hire a new person to read their crystal ball to see the stupidity out there. That would have prevented the accident.

[Hammer 4]

What's lacking in cases like these is. Common Sense.. :