3.8 million dollar jury award against Brunswick--be aware

hi tom,
many individual states had the drinking age as 18. when i turned 18 (1967) i was legally able to purchase beer in the state of ohio. it was the federal government that caused the states to increase the age to 21. the feds did this by intimidation, change the state law to 21 and continue to receive government funds. so, the states, being the whores that they are, raised the age limit and got the money! in my humble opinion, we should have raised the age at which a soldier could go into combat to age 21 as well.
regarding the captain being the only responsible party, the captain is in charge of the vessel while underway and/or makingway, however the responsibility, liability, will always be shared with the owner of the vessel as well. the year of the ski boat wasn't mentioned, so if it was newer, not likely an 18 yr old would be the owner, just from a financial standpoint. car versa boat is a bad comparison, vehicle is not meant to be driven with people running behind it, tethered to it, or climbing up on it's bumpers, those are outside of the normal operation mode, boats on the other hand are designed for those purposes. as our attorneys become more creative, we can expect more litigation.
pat
 
Hold on here! Looking at the original post I note that:

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.
Click to expand...

The person injured, Brochtrup, is the one that jumped (not fell) into the water, presumable without telling the captain.

We can't prevent dumbness!! The passenger jumped off the back of the boat. However, how did the captain not see he was missing a passenger, it was only an 18 ft open boat.

From my point of view, there are only two persons responsible here. The captain's first responsibility is to his passengers, and the passenger is responsible to stay aboard until the captain says its OK to jump off the boat.

The owner may also have some liability, it was the captain's familys boat, presumably that means it was owned by his parents.

It appears that he boat itself was not at fault. The controls operated as expected.

Prop guards don't work on high speed boats due to the drag of the guard. Propeller ring guards have also been shown to suck limbs into the prop or cause severe injury by the impact of the guard on a person.

Jet drive boats provide more protection to persons in the water. PWCs are jet drive.

It's a dangerous world out there, be careful or get removed from the gene pool!!
 
Sorry but the car comparison still stands. You are in the car or you are not. I have jumped out of lots of trucks. its the responsibility of the driver, not the owner, to not run people over. If you lent your car to your 18 year old and he hit some one you are not at fault are you?? your insurance on the car, or boat, may have to pay because you own it but you are not at fault for another adult.

Very aware of how the drinking age got changed and which morons ( government and private sector ) were involved and why. What I am asking is why do we put up with such stupidity and loss of freedom. 18 year olds are adults. Who they live with is not the determining factor of adult hood ( mom and dad). This obsession with prolonging child hood and lack of responsibility is crazy. Its often driven by a false hood that everyone is still a kid until after school is done and everyone should go to collage. Hey its nice if you can get in and get it paid for but the vast majority of people just go to work instead.

The sooner we treat all of society as adults at 18 and not just some in some cases ( you can marry but not drink , abortion but use mom and dads insurance etc..) the better for the 18 year olds and the better for us.

At 18 my father was married with one kid and another on the way working two jobs and paying his taxes. In order to keep his job he had to "act like an adult". The more you expect out of people the you will get.
 
JamesTXSD":89e0rac4 said:
. . . the vast majority of our elected lawmakers are lawyers. . .
Click to expand...

Pat's in Korea, so somebody's got to stand up for the guy.! javascript:emoticon(':D')

Seriously, this is one of those shibboleths for a particular point of view that just gets repeated without much questioning. Here are the numbers of lawyers in Congress as gleaned from the campaign website of that radical lefty, Ron Paul:

TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE HOUSE: 162 out of 441 or 36%
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE SENATE: 54 out of 100 or 54%

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/94514

Now those numbers might be called a "vast majority" in the hyperbolic rhetoric of a lawyer, but I don't think they would make the grade for either a mathematician or an English major. The "lawyer legislators" are listed by name, so presumably there is some level of accuracy, although I don't know how rigorously the numbers were derived. The list includes anyone who earned a law degree or who identified himself or herself as a lawyer. The truth is, graduating from law school does not make one a lawyer, certainly not in the stereotypical sense in which the term is bandied about in discussions on tort reform. Many law school graduates never practice law at all, and most lawyers who do actually practice law have never brought a tort action against anyone. I'd bet that not even a majority of the "lawyer-legislators" in congress are former trial lawyers.

Perhaps even more pertinent is the fact that historically the real action in tort law has been at the state level. Care to guess how many lawyers (of any kind) there are in the Washington State Legislature? You would have trouble categorizing them as anything more than a small minority. Typically in recent years there have been more state legislators with ties to the real estate and insurance industries and to education, than to law. In the not too distant past, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee was a farmer, in part because he was an extremely capable legislator, and in part because there were no lawyers at all in the majority party.

A particularly sweet double irony is to be found in the position taken by many who call for federal tort reform. First, many of these folks will profess to be philosophically committed to "states rights," but they can somehow kind of gloss over the inconsistency in their position on tort reform. (Let's hear it for a broad reading of the Commerce Clause!) Second, by moving the action from state legislatures which have relatively fewer lawyers, to the federal Congress, which has relatively more lawyers, they make it hard to take seriously the argument that lawyers are all that stand between the current tort system and goodness and light.

Just so I'm not misunderstood. I think there is a whole lot wrong with the current tort system. If the award cited at the beginning of this thread is based on the facts as related, and the award is upheld, that would be a travesty. Personally, I'd be surprised if the award isn't tossed on appeal.

Interest groups with lots of money have influence over legislation. The trial lawyers are one of those groups. They are not, however, a vast majority of our elected lawmakers.

PS: Just out of curiosity -
1. Should the estate of the California policeman and his family killed in their run-away car, be barred from suing Toyota? Should the jury be prevented from setting the damages?
2. If you loan your car to an 18 year old, and he runs into someone and kills them, should you be liable? If you thought the 18 year old might be a little high when you gave him the keys? If he was falling down drunk? If you served him the drinks that made him drunk? If you knew he had 3 prior DUI's? If you told him he had to fill the almost empty tank with gas, even though he was only going to drive it 5 miles?

Remember, the goal is to make people responsible for their actions so that they don't hurt other people by acting negligently or recklessly.
 
hi tom,
first, i would never assume the person you loan your vehicle to will be covered by your auto policy. it depends on many qualifying factors, who they are, where they live and their relationship to you, as well as how they intend to use your vehicle. now if , that person is covered and they have an accident while driving your vehicle, and as a direct and proximent cause of their negligence someone is either injured or killed or property damage occurs, your insurance policy will pay up to the limits of the policy. that's the insurance aspect, regarding the civil part of the loss, the owner can and normally is held responsible for the actions of the driver, (as well as the driver) he had loaned his vehicle to, however there are always exceptions, for example, the driver gets out of the vehicle and punches byrdman in the nose, or the driver robs dr. bob of his money and uses the vehicle as a get away, and assuming the vehicle owner no prior knowledge of the event, many others, but i think you get the idea. i enjoy these post because it gives each of us the opportunity to share information that is important to us. as mentioned before, if you loan your vehicle to someone who maybe had dui's, accident's, and/or tickets, then it is said you have entrusted your vehicle to a heedless, reckless individual,, lack of knowledge is not a defense. if you didn't know, you should have known.
again, as mentioned before, if criminal charges are brought against the driver and/or owner, insurance policies exclude the cost of defense and fines, regarding these matters.
in my office, we never recommend loaning of one's vehicle, whether you or i feel it's fair doesn't matter. my opinion is, boats are no different.
always good to exchange ideas, keeps us out of potential trouble.
best regards
pat

ps: if you find an attorney who finds the content of my statement to be false, i will be happy to treat you to lunch. on the other hand if someone reads this post and profits from it, then all is good!
 
on the P.S. questions.

1. a run away car is a malfunction of the car and there by ( to proven in court) the fault of the car maker. run some one over with a car or boat because you are not paying attention is your fault only. what is hard about understanding this?

2. there are five questions in number 2
1. no
2. yes
3. yes
4. no
5. nothing to do with the question.


about the lawyers. of 100% of congress, about 35 to 50% are lawyers. Why so many for that one job group. All the other jobs in the world ( doctor , cop , business owner, teacher, firefighter, architect, welder, realtor,tinker, tailor, spy just to name a few) make up the other 50%. sounds like a uneven distribution to me.

For the record (not that it was aimed at me) I am not a defender of states right and have not made up my mind if we should even keep them or not as governing bodies, seems like a lot of over kill. But if the feds where doing their real job and following the Constitution we would not have a problem to begin with.

So whos fishing this week end.? :D
 
Bill, thanks for setting the record (and me) straight. I believed what I read about "most" being lawyers. Don't remember who wrote it or where I read it, so I won't repeat that again.

Let's see... 36% in the House, 54% in the Senate... add that up... carry the 1... I was a math major... isn't that 36+54=90... OMG, 90% of them are lawyers!!! :roll: 8) :mrgreen:

I hope this isn't construed as political, because this is an interesting thread. The solution to all these unfounded lawsuits is to have the losing party pay ALL the legal costs. Eliminate lawyers encouraging people to sue by eliminating the contingency fees. You bring a frivolous lawsuit and lose, you still pay... for all of it, both sides.

Respectfully,
Jim B.
 
NORO LIM":350syrh9 said:
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE HOUSE: 162 out of 441 or 36%
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE SENATE: 54 out of 100 or 54%

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/94514

Now those numbers might be called a "vast majority" in the hyperbolic rhetoric of a lawyer, but I don't think they would make the grade for either a mathematician or an English major. The "lawyer legislators" are listed by name, so presumably there is some level of accuracy, although I don't know how rigorously the numbers were derived. The list includes anyone who earned a law degree or who identified himself or herself as a lawyer. The truth is, graduating from law school does not make one a lawyer, certainly not in the stereotypical sense in which the term is bandied about in discussions on tort reform. Many law school graduates never practice law at all, and most lawyers who do actually practice law have never brought a tort action against anyone. I'd bet that not even a majority of the "lawyer-legislators" in congress are former trial lawyers.

Perhaps even more pertinent is the fact that historically the real action in tort law has been at the state level.
Click to expand...

The REAL pertinent fact is this:

Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), this group of plaintiffs' attorneys and others in the legal profession now goes by the name of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and boasts 56,000 members worldwide. A lobbying heavyweight, the association has been battling any attempt at tort reform, including recent proposals to cap awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. AAJ also lobbies Congress on any legislation that may inhibit the ability of consumers to bring lawsuits, particularly against health care providers, asbestos companies or insurance companies processing claims related to terrorism. The association favors Democrats, who oppose most attempts to initiate tort reform.
Click to expand...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065

It's so obvious that it's insulting. :roll: As a result WE ALL PAY MORE and certain politicians line their pockets. It's a lose/win scenario.
 
NORO LIM":lasf3ouh said:
JamesTXSD":lasf3ouh said:
. . . the vast majority of our elected lawmakers are lawyers. . .
Click to expand...
Pat's in Korea, so somebody's got to stand up for the guy.! javascript:emoticon(':D')

Seriously, this is one of those shibboleths for a particular point of view that just gets repeated without much questioning. Here are the numbers of lawyers in Congress as gleaned from the campaign website of that radical lefty, Ron Paul:

TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE HOUSE: 162 out of 441 or 36%
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE SENATE: 54 out of 100 or 54%

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/94514

<<stuff clipped>>
Click to expand...

Thank you Noro Lim. I'm not going to get into Tort Reform because I don't have the info or background to speak about it. But I will say that I agree with what Bill said above about this being one of those threads where a particular point of view gets repeated without much questioning. Normally I try to stay out of these type of threads because many times, I don't agree with the particular point of view. In any case, it's curious how a case about personal responsibility somehow turns to what's wrong with the (current) government, the legal drinking age and how many lawyers there are in congress. Talk about a runaway thread.

For the record, I don't believe Brunswick should be held responsible either. I do believe that the driver of the boat was to blame and wasn't that the subject of this thread to begin with?
________________
Peter
 
Peter,
Not having information nor background on a subject as never kept anyone from posting their rants on this site!
Just think "The Sky Is Falling" and type away!
 
threads can have many directions, providing there is interest, if not, they die slow and/or fast death. we determine that by our responses. those who know me would tell you i'd much rather tell a joke, than formulate an opinion which may or may not be shared. personally i think these post bring us closer as friends, we share ideas and opinions that encourage thought, which makes us better at what we do. if the great and wonderful, capt. maj. byrdman accidentally pulled the wrong switch and this site was lost, it would be a big loss to me.
pat
 
No matter which side of the political fence one sits, the central nasty here is that a manufacturer was nailed for the egregiously negligent behavior of an owner/operator (and his friend, perhaps).

Every one of us understand the inherent dangers of propellors. I can not see this surviving an appeal.

This has nothing to do with who is in Congress or which political party is in power.
 
Hey I never said any thing about party's! oh that was the cop. :shock:

I have figured out what the disagreement is. Pat is talking about who has to pay and I am talking about who is at fault. :wink:

I do have to disagree that if I lend you my car and you have a past DUI that i am at fault for anything. You were not drunk when I handed you the keys and the state has not took your license away.... how am I at fault???

Susan has hit several cars in her life, 5 or 6, but if I let her drive my car all the time am I at fault if she gets in another wreck? Yes it will be on my insurance but its not my fault.
 
Prop guards--there are many "net" commerica and pot pullingl fishing boats which have fully enclosed mesh screen cages--but as noted, an injury can still occur. I have also seen prop cages on commercial dive boats.

Jet drives or PWC: I believe in the remote past, I posted about the danger of these drives. A friends daughter had been the passanger on a PWC operated by her brother, owned by the grandfather. She fell off the back as the operator accelorated. The jet blast ripped open her rectal and perineal areas--and many months later after multiple surgeries she returned to college, she will not be able to bear children because of internal damage. Her father was a tort attorney, but legal action taken against the PWC manufactuer was settled out of court. The PWC manufactuers have supressed a number of these type of cases with non disclosure clauses.

As for the age of responsibility--maybe it is higher now than when I was young. But I and many of my friends were operating boats responsibaly early in our teens, even before we were allowed to legally drive cars. We understood the dangers of props when water skiing. There are far more injuries caused by 18 year old drivers in autos than in boats!

I'll not comment on tort reform--and that was not the reason I posted this article. Yes, I suspect that insurance companies were involved in the settlements--and that is a very good reason to have vessel liability and an umbrella insurance policy--as well as to help pay for the legal fees, if such an accident were to occur.
 
I would assume that normal practice would be relevant in any design "flaw" as far as responsibility goes. By this I mean, for example that if you hit your finger with a hammer (don't laugh it happens,) that the hammer maker isn't liable, because he's followed normal practice and made hammers in the normal ordinary way.

Since propellers have been hung off the rear of boats as normal practice for a century and Sea Ray has followed normal design practice, they're not liable. Note that's only one way of looking at it. For further legal advice, see Pat.

A jury can be convinced of anything, even things not relevant, since they're only human. Let's see what an appellate court says.

Boris
 
Maybe they could do a mini tort reform like they have in canada, the losing party pays all the fees and court costs. Slows down the filing of lawsuits substantially.
 
No comment on most of this, sort of speaks for itself.

But Pat said


"ps: if you find an attorney who finds the content of my statement to be false, i will be happy to treat you to lunch. on the other hand if someone reads this post and profits from it, then all is good!"

And being more interested in a free lunch than the political debate I must take exception with part of this because Pat also wrote (speaking about when insurance might not pay because the bad driver acted intentionally),

"however there are always exceptions, for example, the driver gets out of the vehicle and punches byrdman in the nose, "

I think there would be no prosecution and or or this would not be classified as an intentional tort but rather as justifiable public beautification. :wink:

I am looking forward to lunch.

Mark
 
Back
Top