posted 11-11-2010 02:04 PM ET (US)        

http://www.marconews.com/news/2010/nov/10/ 175-million-sea-doo-verdict-rejected-injured-naple/

Props or no props, anyone can be injured if not careful

posted 11-11-2010 02:20 PM ET (US)            

When you see suits like this in the news, many people read into the outcome not knowing what the standard is. That is really the key in these types of cases. Often times you will see these crazy cases where somebody did something stupid, gets injured, and sues. Some states allow people to bring a suit even if they are 90% negligent. They will reduce the award by 90%, but 10% out of $10 million for instance is a nice pay out.

posted 11-11-2010 11:49 PM ET (US)            

I'm tempted to simply say we should be responsible for our own actions but sometimes the innocents can be caught up in the actions of others beyond their control. I remember seeing a guy in a 20+ foot IO jumping cruiser wakes. He screwed up with his throttle, went ten feet straight up in the air and landed flat on the transom. The boat was inches away from flipping over backwards. He and all four passengers were tossed out of the boat. Fortunately no one was seriously injured but the passengers were subject to the driver's stupidity that could have cost them their life and limb. Just like you don't ride with drunk drivers, somehow you need to know the competency of the person operating the watercraft.

posted 11-13-2010 01:18 AM ET (US)            

Is this due to auto manufactures can afford to fight the law suits where other OEM's are more vulnerable?

posted 11-13-2010 09:03 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Out of interest why do our boats and many other products have warning stickers everywhere yet cars have relatively few by comparison

---

posted 11-13-2010 09:47 AM ET (US)            

Now, I wonder if the injuries to people, especially females, due to falling off the back of a jet ski are really the fault of the jet pump, or more due to the victim landing in the water at even higher speeds with legs apart.

posted 11-13-2010 10:06 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Have you ever counted the number or warning/safety stickers on an ordinary step ladder?

---

Can’t say I have counted them but they are more noticeable than cars. Of course I expect US ladders to have more stickers :)

It just seems strange to me if your jet ski has to have a warning sticker on protective clothing against colonic irrigation yet a car has none on what you can injure yourself via an open car window or door at speed

It seems there must be some precedence set on automotive dangers and user/passenger awareness vs other vehicles etc to have all these extra stickers.

As an addition point water parks make sure you cross your legs on some rides to avoid cavity flushing :)

posted 11-13-2010 11:01 AM ET (US)            

You bring up an interesting point about the number of warnings posted for an automobile compared to other products.

My guess is that the car being such a big part of American life and practically every adult over 16 has experience driving, that there is more "allowance" for common sense.

To illustrate the difference between boats and cars, use for example the lawsuit where the person fell off the back of the boat and the panicked driver backed up and injured him with the propeller and/or hit him with the hull.

Now imagine a person falling off the back of a convertible and the driver panicking and backing up over and injuring the fallen individual.

posted 11-13-2010 11:11 AM ET (US)            

It is much easier to fall out of a boat, or off of a Jet Ski. If you fall out and are not wearing a PFD, you have to swim to survive. Not everyone knows how to swim.

posted 11-13-2010 11:54 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

A driver made a sudden and sharp turn at high speed, resulting in the FORD vehicle rolling over.

---

posted 11-13-2010 12:47 PM ET (US)            

As regards Ford lawsuits, some years ago when I spent a lot of time on commercial airliners traveling around the country, I sat next to a Ford employed attorney on a cross country flight. OF course we talked about Pinto gas tanks. He told me that at any give time Ford had 28,000 open lawsuits going on. Now that's the lawyers full employment act. Not sure if accurate but that's what the man said.

posted 11-14-2010 12:38 PM ET (US)            

I seem to recall in the thread on the woman who injured her leg on the prop when falling out of the boat many suggested reading and setting a safety plan to passengers etc

It just seems there's some imbalance against most vehicles except cars, maybe the stickers spoil the look of the interior or you would not see the interior for the stickers

Buckda

You maybe able to breath easier if you fall out of the back of a cabriolet than a boat, but are more likely to be run over by all the vehicles behind you. As not everyone knows how to dodge 100,s of cars on a highway :)

posted 11-15-2010 01:52 PM ET (US)            

I have two father's in-law, both pro bass fishermen. One is sponsored by Champion boats, and occasionally gets a boat for evaluation, that's not for sale to the public. He used to be one of their test drivers. Next time he gets an "experimental" rig, I'll have to see if they sticker-it-up, anyway. You never know. If somebody steals it and gets hurt while using it, and it does not have warning stickers, in this day and age, I imagine Champion could still be found liable in a trial. It wouldn't be any more outlandish than the results of the suit that found against Mercury, in Texas earlier this year.

posted 11-15-2010 04:06 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

with hugely-endowed, scantily-clad young women

---

Those are the only stickers in decline :)

So when is a sticker required in addition to warning in the owners/operators manual ?

posted 11-16-2010 04:34 PM ET (US)            

$23.7 million awarded to some idiot who rolled his Bronco, and the roof collapsed is an absolutely outrageous affront to all of us, not just Ford. The fact that it was once $300 million is so irrelevant as to defy description. It amazes me that the government won't let Ford sell Broncos, (or any vehicles) unless it meet the governments OWN rollover standards, and THEN they allow someone to sue in government courts after a rollover accident. Does ANYbody see the idiocy in that? Is anybody affronted, besides me?

I would actually be fine with people suing the pants off of Ford or any deep pocketed automaker in government courts, IF the government got it's strangling, regulatory hands off the automaker's necks. But if you're going to make them comply with rollover standards in the name of public safety, you forfeit the public's right to sue when they are dissatisfied with the results of a rollover. How basic is this?

posted 11-16-2010 06:25 PM ET (US)            

"Elaelap: Your [sic] right not all of the warning labels stem from lawsuits only about 90% of them do."

First (man oh man, this gets so very, very tedious), there's absolutely no way that 90 percent of the warning labels posted in recreational party boats "stem from lawsuits" -- they are in fact required by federal regulations regarding boats that carry paying passengers. Second (and this is the part that makes me very crazy), Mr. contender just winged his assertion: he made it up out of some muzzy misconception stuck in his mind, garnered from God knows where, but he asserts it as if it were absolute truth. That, gentlemen and ladies, is where our poor country is today, and if I were a religious man I'd be down on my knees in prayer.

posted 11-16-2010 07:19 PM ET (US)            

Do you think a judge and attorney craft up these figures? If so, you really need to go spend a couple hours watching a civil trial (not magistrate). It is free and almost all are open to everyone.

posted 11-16-2010 07:23 PM ET (US)            

That innocent people died does not negate the idiocy, or implicate the manufacturer, even if a slick con man succeeds in bamboozling a jury.

The same common sense applies to an even greater degree in boating accidents.

posted 11-16-2010 07:34 PM ET (US)            

You and I agree on one thing, I would not want a flimsy fiberglass shell for rollover protection. So I wouldn't buy something that had it. And if Ford went and sold fiberglass roofed Broncos WITHOUT FEDERAL APPROVAL, you'd see me supporting he $300 million judgement, and asking it be raised. But if they got Federal approval to sell that deign, one red cent is too great a fine.

posted 11-16-2010 08:13 PM ET (US)            

For those of you that think that the prop case is outrageous, you can take comfort in knowing that a case like this will most likely go to 3 different courts before the plaintiff sees a dime. If the Supreme Court doesn't like what the State court is doing they can grab it and review as well. At any time during this process, if they find an error in law they can correct the error or send it back down to be retried all over again.

If you go watch a real trial you will see that it isn't anything like Law and Order or a John Grishom novel. The amount of detail and data evaluated is like nothing you will ever see.

posted 11-16-2010 09:15 PM ET (US)            

Tj, if the rollover was not the fault of the driver of the Bronco, then the party that caused the accident should have been sued. If Ford sold them a vehicle that was not Federally certified, Ford should be sued, too. I'm on record as saying that. If Ford built the car according to the standards forced upon them then they should not have been sued. What am I missing here?

Jtms, you painted a picture where due process is double checked and triple checked. YET technology does not exist such that you can shroud a prop, or even build a purposely engineered jet drive that is even CLOSE in terms of performance/efficiency in a planing hull boat, to a standard prop like most of us have. Period. All you have told us here tonight is that due process of the law has no regard for what is scientifically possible or not. The result is that a professional pitch-man bamboozled a jury into believing such technology exists, when it doesn't. What more is there to say in the matter?

posted 11-17-2010 12:31 AM ET (US)            

How about BOTH options 1 and 2 of your post above? Businesses that do not live with their necks in the hands of strangling regulation ought to be exposed to more tort liability, as a check against them running amok. As for option 2, I submit that businesses that are heavily regulated by the government are ALREADY subject to grindingly slow certification cycles. No change there. In fact, it might even streamline things a little if they didn't have to fight a war on two fronts: both Federal compliance AND product liability. If they could shed the latter, we might all be better off with more innovative products that are more affordable to folks who are otherwise left on the sidelines of privilege. Thoughts?

By the way TJ, I appreciate your civil disposition. I've been in a huff in this thread, (in case you couldn't tell), and have been fully expecting return in kind.

posted 11-17-2010 12:11 PM ET (US)            

"Product warning labels are required by several different enforcement agencies. For some products, like medicine or cigarettes, warning labels are mandated by the government or by the Food and Drug Administration. For other products, the impetus for the warning label comes from tort law. Tort law is civil law--the branch of law that allows people to sue individuals or companies for harm or damages. Under tort law, if a product is potentially dangerous, the manufacturer has a "duty to warn" and that duty imposes the requirement of a warning label. The specific information and the type of warning label varies, depending on who or what is mandating the placement of the product warning label".

posted 11-17-2010 01:54 PM ET (US)            

As an aside, wasn't it interesting that the conservative justices voted for the poor guy and the liberal justices voted for the rich guy?

How much tort exposure do the regulatory agencies face, when, say, they enforce a set of standards, the manufacturer complies with those standards, and a plaintiff sues because of inadequacy of the standards? Take your lawyer hat off for a second, and tell us why that is good and right?

posted 11-17-2010 02:50 PM ET (US)            

As it happened the automobile company he worked for was being sued and he was called as a witness in the trial to testify on their behalf. At stake were many millions of dollars in damages being sought, with the potential of even more copy-cat lawsuits to come if the plaintiff prevailed. As I recall his testimony was to explain some technical points of the engineering behind why a certain part or assembly had been designed, tested, and put into manufacture. He spent a long time in the witness stand and in cross-examination. His presentation was no doubt very well done, and I imagine he impressed the jury. At the end of the trial the auto manufacturer prevailed and the jury found them not liable due to product defect.