Re: [OMC-Boats] prop safety

Having just read the underlying article again - in the cold light of day -
I think I see where this is heading.
Manufacturers adopt whatever impractical in the real world shield that would
serve to protect them from liability...owners promptly remove said
unworkable shield and thus absolve the manufacturer of liability.
Can we see a show of hands in the room of people who have the blade guards
properly installed on their table saws?

Hmmm.....thought so.

Peter
neither do I
in Denver

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:38 AM, BLDFW <bldfw@...> wrote:

> "Let’s hope the floodgates don’t start opening....."
>
> Like you said, it's all about MONEY...and man has no bounds when it comes
> to greed...so there will no stopping the flood if it's not tossed out on
> appeal.
>
> Personally I believe we would not be such a litigious society if lawmakers
> back in the 70's had not removed the prohibition on lawyers to advertise on
> TV. Prior to that, there was not nearly the quest for free money as you see
> today.
>
>
> -Bill
> Dallas, TX
> 1970 Evinrude Explorer - 155 Buick V6 - OMC Sterndrive
> http://www.photobucket.com/evinrude_explorer
>
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 4/7/10, Andy Perakes <aperakes@...>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Andy Perakes <aperakes@...>
>
> Subject: Re: [OMC-Boats] prop safety
> To: "'Evinrude & Johnson Boats of the 1960's and 70's'" <
> omc-boats@...>
> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 6:47 AM
>
>
> I agree. Numerous independent studies have found that prop guards don’t
> allow the boat to properly function. They destroy efficiency, adversely
> affect handling, and are vulnerable to plugging with weeds, among other
> problems. I worked as a defense engineering analyst and it disgusted me
> that these trials aren’t in the least about what’s right or wrong – what
> really happened in the case of accident reconstruction – they’re about money
> and that’s it. In states with “joint and several liability,” you only need
> to show the manufacturer was 1% liable then they get to foot the whole bill
> because the operator almost always can’t pay. Btw, one comment asked if the
> kids had been drinking, but it has almost no bearing because they are
> alleging a product defect. Even if they’d been blitzed to the point of near
> unconsciousness, about all the defense can do is bring in an expert to
> challenge the plaintiffs ability to remember events properly which is
> generally little help.
>
>
>
> Ironically I’m currently reading “The Runaway Jury” which is about the
> importance of winning the first smokers suit against the tobacco companies
> because that would open the floodgates for all suits. While its fiction, I
> couldn’t help but notice “the decision marks the first successful case
> against the boating industry.” Let’s hope the floodgates don’t start
> opening and drive up the cost of boats the way they’ve done to cars and
> planes (and…).
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* omc-boats-bounces@... [mailto:
> omc-boats-bounces@...] *On Behalf Of *BLDFW
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:00 AM
> *To:* Evinrude & Johnson Boats of the 1960's and 70's
> *Subject:* Re: [OMC-Boats] prop safety
>
>
>
> I'm really sorry for the kid and the injuries he had to endure....BUT....
>
> I think it's crazy but as long as attorney's are permitted to shop for a
> deep pocket, it will continue. They couldn't hope to get any kind of high
> settlement from the boat operator so they concoct a theory in order to
> justify going after the manufacturer. The individual should not have jumped
> in the water and put himself in danger around a moving boat, and the
> operator should have looked to the rear before putting the boat in reverse
> and, as we all know you must do to stop forward momentum, rev up the engine
> and thus the prop which in turn creates a reverse water flow.
>
> It's always important to find someone else to blame and to pay for our
> mistakes so that we don't have to admit we did something stupid and
> costly.....
>
> -Bill
> Dallas, TX
> 1970 Evinrude Explorer - 155 Buick V6 - OMC Sterndrive
> http://www.photobucket.com/evinrude_explorer
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 4/6/10, jd <jdood@...>* wrote:
>
>
> From: jd <jdood@...>
> Subject: [OMC-Boats] prop safety
> To: "Evinrude and 70's & Johnson Boats of the 1960's" <
> omc-boats@...>
> Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 11:44 PM
>
> this came out today
>
>
> http://www.statesman.com/news/local/jurors-find-boat-manufacturer-partly-liable-527456.html
>
> I personally don't think the boat mfgr should have been to blame at all,
> no more than a car company should be to blame when someone gets run over.
> But it has made me start thinking about prop safety.
>
> - anyone know or have any direct experience with any prop guards out there?
>
> - the whole prop lower unit system seems goofy to me. It's this big house
> of cards - if you hit something you either ruin your lower unit, or if your
> lucky you break a fin off your prop. All the prop needs to do is spin
> through water. So why isn't it designed with a simple cotter pin type of
> system where the cotter pin breaks the second it encounters any
> resistance? Am I missing something here? Cheaper, safer, could fix
> on the fly just by putting in a new pin. Eh?
>
> jeff
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OMC-Boats mailing list
> OMC-Boats@...
> http://lists.ultimate.com/mailman/listinfo/omc-boats
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OMC-Boats mailing list
> OMC-Boats@...<http://mc/compose?to=OMC-Boats@...ate.com>
> http://lists.ultimate.com/mailman/listinfo/omc-boats
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OMC-Boats mailing list
> OMC-Boats@...
> http://lists.ultimate.com/mailman/listinfo/omc-boats
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010