Jury finds Brunswick partially responsible for accident

And I suppose this means we will probably get more useless warning stickers on our boats too to "protect" us from ourselves. I can hardly wait for that one!
:smt021
 
Last edited:
As a lawyer I'm embarassed for the system. Obviously, its not often that results like this occur but sooner or later you're going to end up with a jury pool of people that walk among us that just makes you shake your head. Although, I haven't read the briefs I'm disappointed to see that the judge would not have dismissed this case on summary judgment. Should never have even got to a jury. I can understand defective products cases and even inherently dangerous product case such as harmful medications, the 3-wheelers or Pintos from years ago. But to suggest that a propeller is somehow a concealed or unreasonably inherent danger is ridiculous.

There is a not a person on this planet that cannot appreciate the danger a propeller poses. The law should not go this far to protect stupid. Its an unreasonable standard. Where does it end? Are bath tub manufactures going to get sued because people slip in tubs all the time?

Unfortunately, I doubt an appeal is going to change this outcome unless there were some trial issues. The appellate court won't simply disturb the jury finding because it doesn't agree with the result.

I also don't think you should get unlimited cracks at it with hung juries. After 2, you should be barred from re-litigating.
 
bmalassoc said:
Only in America!
Click to expand...

Yeah....you walk down the street in Mazatlan, fall into a 6ft deep hole, created by a road crew, that was covered by a piece if plywood and just try to sue. "Why did you step on the plywood in a construction area without knowing what was underneath?......idiot!"
 
I hope the attorney above is wrong...and Brunswick is successful on appeal.
They must appeal- not because of a few million bucks, but because of the precedent such an award would create.

Guards on a propeller? Are you kidding me? Can't be done and keep the hydrodynamics intact.

I'm sure the owner's manuals have multiple warnings about being in the water while the engine is in gear.

I'd like to hear the jurors' comments on this one...

The "devices" the plaintiff's attorney refers to that were invented "years ago" must be the stupid weed guard thingies made for small bass boat outboards to go through thick weeds.
 
Last edited:
When I bug bombed myself I had a lawyer call me asking if I was thinking about suing them. :wow:
I said what for ??, He said it said nothing on the can about don't use it on a boat :smt021
I said NO thanks it was my mistake for not reading the label. NOT theirs . :smt001
 
Regards to the young man? Doesn't he know not to jump at the stern, for what, a loose rope! This has nothing to do with Brunswick, it has a lot to do with operators not following the rules. If alluded to before, alcohol was involved, then the driver is responsible. He/she is the Captain. They are responsible.
 
Obviously without seeing the trial and the evidence its impossible to say whether it can get over turned and sent back to the trial court. I hope it does as well. There are a variety of reasons why that may happen but one of the reasons that it won't get over turned is if the appellate court simply disagrees with the jury result. That's not an appellate court's role. It will have to determine some legal error occurred. Wrong law applied, improper evidence etc etc.
 
Each member of the jury thinks that they would want to win such a case if it were them being that stupid.
 
Seriously folks. This tragic story should remind us that we all need to carry Liability insurance. If we like it or not, being a boat owner makes you a perceived target for lawsuit (many think boat owner = mega wealth.. we know this is not always true). It is not manditory to carry personal liability insurance, but as a protection to my family and assets I would never boat without something like this in my policy:

Boat Liability
The Liability section of the policy provides protection if you are legally responsible for damages to property or injury to someone other than yourself or a family member. Boat Insurance liability provides protection if you are sued as a result of hitting another boat, or if someone is hurt onboard your vessel because of your negligence. This coverage is usually offered in increments of $100,000 up to $1 million.
Medical Payments
The Medical Payments section of the policy provides protection for reasonable medical, ambulance and hospital costs should someone be injured while in, upon, boarding or leaving your boat.

As Boulder GT3 mentioned above, everyone within 100 miles with more than $100 will get sued in a serious indecent. I am as disgusted as anyone on how the system works by the way. I also am not any where near an expert insurance, so please don't take this as a shameless plug.

Just my $.02.
 
Oh, I didn't even think of my mechanic losing a finger in my engine room. Guess I need to check on this in my own policy:

A good policy will also provide a separate coverage for your liability under the Federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. This will cover your statutory liability to temporary shore-based workers, such as a mechanic or marina employee, if they become injured aboard your boat.

http://www.acemarineinsurance.com/A...l+Marine/For+Customers/Boat+Insurance+101.htm
 

Attachments

  • propmed2.jpg
    propmed2.jpg
    10.4 KB · Views: 178
Not to get off topic but I don't get the lawyer bashing. Those same people on here that are clammering for personal responsibility want to blame the lawyers for this decision and NOT THE JURORS who actually rendered the decision. That's where the blame should lie. Or what about your legislature that doesn't pass stricter product liability laws. Nobody wants to admit that those jurors are your neighbors, co-workers, relatives etc. Easier to blame the lawyer but I've never seen a lawyer in the jury room.

So what happens when the chainsaw industry has to put a guard all the way around the chain rendering it useless . . .? Or speed limiters on cars? What reason does any car have to go 100mph?? So, when a teenage speeds and kills himself why not sue the car maker for allowing it to be driven so fast? Its ridiculous.

BTW, Sea Ray, if you're looking for new defense counsel I have a referral for you . . .
 
Last edited:
That looks like a dangerous product, I can see it now, some idiot uses that to help climb back on the boat with the engine running after falling over board taking a p!ss and cuts their foot off.....


eshasek said:
Wonder if this is what they were talking about. It doesn't look very practical to me.

http://www.propguardmarine.com/how.html
Click to expand...

attachment.php
 
Stupid Judge. Stupid jury. Why are so many more people stupid today?
 
sfergson727 said:
Interestingly enough, I used to fly around a lawyer down there in Cincinnati, who I am sure you know. He is rather famous/infamous as the lawyer who instigated the class action lawsuit of the night club fire back in the '70's. Very nervous flyer.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know him . . . ;) You know he lost that case the first go around and then got a new trial because of some juror doing his own testing. The rest is history.

I have NO issue with a lawyer bringing the case and arguing the point regardless how much I disagree with the claim. A lawyer is suppose to be a zealous advocate within the confines of the law. He won so obviously he was. Its the judge and jurors job to render the right decision. The american system of allowing your day in court is a great system. Too bad there are too many people out there with a wacked belief system. As an aside, this was in federal court which is typically better jury pool.
 
No doubt the system is flawed but blaming the lawyers is almost as bad as blaming Brunswick. There is plenty of blame to go around and whatever settlement is reached, the money will be split up in so many pieces it will be ridiculous.

In my opinion the system needs to change in order to allow common sense to prevail. Not just common sense of the consumer, but of the participants within the legal system. Someone within the system should have the authority to stop such nonsense. And when they don't, that someone should be beaten to within an inch of his life & shipped off to Gitmo for the remainder of his time on earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,223
Messages
1,428,884
Members
61,116
Latest member
Gardnersf
Back
Top