$200m Lawsuit against boat maker
- Thread starter Benthic2
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The jury system allows an initial award to be out of the range set over the years of precedents for the civil wrong committed. The Court of review, usually the State Court of Appeal, unlike jury members, MUST follow the law, and will bring the award back into that range. If the award includes, as here, a punitive amount, the reason for the punitive award must command that punishment or it will not stand at all, so could be eliminated completely. At the least it will be reduced.
Jury members usually have no legal training. Here is Canada, anyone with legal training can be excused from serving on a jury for that simple reason.
So no Bacchus, you won't have anyone taking your bet.
100% with the vast majority negotiated down and never hitting appeals court. Otherwise company drags it our forever. You won but can't get paid due to all the appeals.
NO!
Most states have it now, but not likely to increase the requirements. We don't do so well with cars either? And nothing in any course talks about not doing things like this boat did.
ssobol
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2015
- Messages
- 1,229
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Sobelle
- Vessel Make
- C-Dory 22 Cruiser
There was a period in the 80's where most of the GA plane manufacturers stopped making most single engine planes because of the liability issues. Wasn't worth the legal exposure. After Tort reform they slowly started making them again.
Jstolaruk
Newbie
I own that exact boat. Now I know one of the reasons (of many I'm sure) it costs 4 times more than when I bought it new.
RT Firefly
Enigma
Where do warning labels stop?
Bob M
Veteran Member
The boat was cruising 5 to 7 MPH. It wasn't overloaded. Once water washed into the forward seating area, it had no where to go, weighted the bow even more and enough water came in to wash a kid overboard.
There was no warning label indicating the boat might nose dive like this.
Is this a poorly designed boat? I don't see how any juror could decide otherwise.
Is the absence of a factory installed label warning that the boat is prone to swamping a good reason for the millions in damages? Again, as a juror, I think I would have come to the conclusion that there should have been one. The amount awarded, however, seems very excessive. With appeals and subsequent negotiations, the family won't get but a fraction of this award, if any.
There was no warning label indicating the boat might nose dive like this.
Is this a poorly designed boat? I don't see how any juror could decide otherwise.
Is the absence of a factory installed label warning that the boat is prone to swamping a good reason for the millions in damages? Again, as a juror, I think I would have come to the conclusion that there should have been one. The amount awarded, however, seems very excessive. With appeals and subsequent negotiations, the family won't get but a fraction of this award, if any.
Last edited:
ssobol
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2015
- Messages
- 1,229
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Sobelle
- Vessel Make
- C-Dory 22 Cruiser
But was the boat cruising in unsuitable conditions? Was the driver going that slow because it was very rough conditions? Were the conditions beyond the capabilities of the operator.
For example, see the Haulover Inlet videos on YouTube. Lot of scenes of boats getting waves over the front, stuffing their bows, and even bouncing passengers off the front of the boat. This happens to a lot bigger boats than the boat in the lawsuit mentioned in this thread.
Last edited:
psneeld
Guru
Always more to the story...a little research and just read an article that described a 30 million award against Mastercraft for a similar event.
I would like to know just how many stampings occurred in how many hours of operation, just how much weight the operator allowed forward, just what control and seakeeping was the operator doing at the time...... would have to read transcripts as typical news reports are suspect at best.
I would like to know just how many stampings occurred in how many hours of operation, just how much weight the operator allowed forward, just what control and seakeeping was the operator doing at the time...... would have to read transcripts as typical news reports are suspect at best.
Many of the boats are designed to provide exceptional waves and patterns and to do so they have incredible ability to change ride and angle and to brake. It reminds me of the early days of recreational jet boats let by Glastron Carlson and Sidewinder among others. In James Bond movies, they did amazing things. In a 16-18' jet you could cruise at 40 mph and ram it into reverse and stop on a dime. You could also spin it in a quick circle at those speeds. Now full reverse at 60 mph and be careful as a wave could push the bow under. So, special designs for special purposes but dangerous in the wrong hands.
What we also do not know is how much training was given. A couple of summers ago we rented a boat on our former home lake, Lake Norman, NC. I was so impressed by the thoroughness of the dock hand who instructed us. Even though someone from the marina who knew us yelled something about we should be the ones training him and even though we were 500 Ton Masters, he covered every item of his training. Then he handed us all in writing and had us sign. We had not rented that boat from that location and there were no short cuts. After it all, he said he was sorry to put us through it all, but we complimented him on doing it and praised him to the owner as well. I don't care how experienced the boater is, if I'm renting them a ski or wakeboard boat, they are going to get training and warning.
Jstolaruk
Newbie
With this boat, my boat, the floor of the bow seating area is common with the remainder of the boat. Under normal circumstances the water moves toward the transom and exits via scuppers. The number of people in the bow would have to be heavy enough to overcome the engine's weight which is centered about 2/3 down the length.
Sounds like the boat was loaded with more people than it was intended to carry. Which is 8. 2 in the bow, 1 driver, 2 in the rear facing monitor seating, and 3 across the rear.
bfloyd4445
Guru
Thats stupid! Your saying that if something could happen the manufacturer must post a label to that effect? Would be impossible to comply with. In the case of the bowrider it dosent take much to take water over the bow. Something as simple as another boats wake can cause that and if the kid was in the very front looking down at the water the bow could easily go under. without being over loaded. Was the kid properly posted with warning labels?
No, its not the manufacturers responsibility to post labels warning of all possible dangers.
In fact every experience boater has had water over the bow at some time or other due to environmental factors not bad boat manufacturer or lack of label.....chuckle...especially frequent occurrence crossing the bar. Reminds me of a very popular local skipper of a commercial trawler that was killed four years ago. I know this bar and harbor well. He crosses the bar fine and was motoring to the harbor a short distance from the bar when she went down taking the captain with her. Deck hands survived and could offer no insight into the cause of the sinking it happened so fast. Because of the currents and proximity to the bar it was not possible to salvage or even retrieve the captains body even though extensive effort was made. this incident happened in Charleston Oregon. My guess is the vessel had been taking on water for sometime and crossing the bar with a full load of....think it was crabs.. and the likely-hood he'd been pooped as well adding to the load when he powered down upon entry to the harbor the bow went under and kept on going. ....geez this bothers me. Almost been in that position myself more than once. After the stress of crossing the bar you kind of relax especially after a hard weeks work.
Last edited:
Transpacdan2442
Member
Bow riding expressly discussed as negligent boat handling during the US Power Squadron’s basic boating safety class called America’s Boating Course. Rental company should be going over this basic information if renting “bow rider” boats. Or better yet do not rent boats to people who can’t prove they have taken one of these classes from the US Power Squadron or Coast Guard Auxiliary.
psneeld
Guru
Bowriding and it's dangers is NOT passengers riding inside on the seats of a "bow rider style boat.
Bow riding as discussed in boating safety classes is people sitting on the gunnel with feet dangling over the side.
Bow riding as discussed in boating safety classes is people sitting on the gunnel with feet dangling over the side.
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,347
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
Plenty of cases of "failure to warn". Rodgers vs Whittaker is imprinted in the brain of ophthalmologists and the medical profession generally here.
In industrial law here, it`s been said the only adequately safety guarded machine is so well guarded it defies use.
Failure to warn often involves operator error. Question is, did was failure to warn causally connected to the operator error.
ronobrien
Guru
You walk through the opening in the windscreen.
Totally agree. I remember years ago. the guards on the printing equipment we bought prevented their use. Stupid.
As for this boat accident, first we really need more info, but on the surface I'd side with the boat manufacturer. And the award is just stupid high.
bfloyd4445
Guru
Thoise safety devices are also intended for right handed people making the use of the tool even more dangerous for left handed people. First thing i do is disable safety devices if i can for safety.
OP
OP
Benthic2
Guru
I think before negligence can be determined there should be a process that decides how common it is. Everyone knows the McDonalds hot coffee case. The fact that they sold millions of coffees and 1 person burned their crotch should be proof that the problem was the customer, not McDonalds. I feel the same way about this case. There are lots of people riding around in open bow ski boats that don't kill people.
bfloyd4445
Guru
Hello fellow TF folks, (New poster so I'm not trying to minimize the tragedy of the family but I found this crazy, uber-dangerous blip on intentionally burying open-bow boats) The Submarine Maneuver is, by far, the most stupid and dangerous intentional move on the waters of the planet.
SO, I have seen open-bow boats swamped by over-taking waves in inlets before but not on lakes/bays/ponds/puddles/rivers. SO, after extensive research (5 minutes) using the ever-true internet and I found that some idiots do this on purpose, then they belly-laugh as their boat almost sinks... Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Submarine Maneuver:
Newbie here so I hope the video got posted correctly. If not, google Submarine Maneuver and watch the craziness...
;-)... IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE from Dewey, Cheatham and Howe: new limited-liability post:
Hello males, females and other identities, I found this uber*-dangerous blip... on the waters of the planet. I found some idiots... laugh as their boat almost sinks. The end.
Legal Warnings:
* no harm intended for anyone related to the current German State or to anyone even remotely connected to kingdoms/fiefdoms/tribes of the Holy Roman Empire in Northern Europe.
- no animals were harmed.. I even restrained from swatting flies while at my desk.
-Invoice for Services Rendered: $ 32,027.00 plus $ 220,00.00 expenses.
Please check here__, To certify that you are cognizant, sober and sane enough to kinda understand what's going on...
SO, I have seen open-bow boats swamped by over-taking waves in inlets before but not on lakes/bays/ponds/puddles/rivers. SO, after extensive research (5 minutes) using the ever-true internet and I found that some idiots do this on purpose, then they belly-laugh as their boat almost sinks... Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Submarine Maneuver:
Newbie here so I hope the video got posted correctly. If not, google Submarine Maneuver and watch the craziness...
;-)... IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE from Dewey, Cheatham and Howe: new limited-liability post:
Hello males, females and other identities, I found this uber*-dangerous blip... on the waters of the planet. I found some idiots... laugh as their boat almost sinks. The end.
Legal Warnings:
* no harm intended for anyone related to the current German State or to anyone even remotely connected to kingdoms/fiefdoms/tribes of the Holy Roman Empire in Northern Europe.
- no animals were harmed.. I even restrained from swatting flies while at my desk.
-Invoice for Services Rendered: $ 32,027.00 plus $ 220,00.00 expenses.
Please check here__, To certify that you are cognizant, sober and sane enough to kinda understand what's going on...
bfloyd4445
Guru
Please check here__, To certify that you are cognizant, sober and sane enough to kinda understand what's going on...[/QUOTE]
Not sure your last sentence applies to anyone. Geez..would take all the fun outa life.....especially on those long boring sea voyages.
RT Firefly
Enigma
Greetings,
Mr. i. Barely got about 45 seconds in so you can only bill me about $30K, or so. TBO, not worth $0.30.
One tries to remember....Was I that dumb in my younger years? Am I being just a bit too critical? Aren't they just kids horsing around?
Naw. Morons.
Mr. i. Barely got about 45 seconds in so you can only bill me about $30K, or so. TBO, not worth $0.30.
One tries to remember....Was I that dumb in my younger years? Am I being just a bit too critical? Aren't they just kids horsing around?
Naw. Morons.
Until you know all the facts, you really can't say the suit is frivolous either. I remember the infamous McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit.
First reaction by me and by others. What did she expect? Cold coffee? Was this her first coffee ever? Idiot. See, I didn't hear what the jury did.
Now the facts are McDonalds was aware of a problem as they'd had over 700 incidents and they'd paid money to many. Furthermore, they were extreme and policy kept their coffee hotter than anyone else did. Furthermore, the 79 year old lady offered to settle for $20,000 just to cover her medical expenses and lost work. They never offered more than $800.
The jury heard all the facts and they were outraged. They used terms like callous disregard and overwhelming facts against McDonalds. They were in disbelief that McDonald's had refused to lower their temperatures or even warn customers. They wanted to send a message. Even the $3 million punitive damage wasn't as outrageous as we might think. It was 2 days worth of coffee sales.
Now, the judge reduced the award to around $600,000 and then McDonalds and the lady worked from there. I'd guess the biggest thing McDonalds went for from there was non-disclosure of what they agreed to, a permanent silencing. $600,000 was nothing to them if they only had to pay one person.
However, the lady and many others got what she wanted, a change, recognizing and addressing a problem.
I often criticize the jury system and certainly on technical and contract issues. However, perhaps cases like this are it at it's best, as an advocate for all of us. Sometimes it's there for the little guy. To those of us with businesses, it's a reminder, if it's not absolutely clear cut and it's a customer vs. us we'll likely lose. A tenant advocate I know warned a landlord by asking if he really wanted a jury trial. The warning was "On the jury, how many owners of 10,000 apartment units do you think there will be and how many who have rented apartments?"
Now we also depend on judges and appeals courts to rebalance things. Just remember, the 79 year old lady who sued McDonalds wasn't being frivolous and if you look carefully at the facts you'll agree McDonald's was wrong. $700 and $800 payouts were not getting their attention.
First reaction by me and by others. What did she expect? Cold coffee? Was this her first coffee ever? Idiot. See, I didn't hear what the jury did.
Now the facts are McDonalds was aware of a problem as they'd had over 700 incidents and they'd paid money to many. Furthermore, they were extreme and policy kept their coffee hotter than anyone else did. Furthermore, the 79 year old lady offered to settle for $20,000 just to cover her medical expenses and lost work. They never offered more than $800.
The jury heard all the facts and they were outraged. They used terms like callous disregard and overwhelming facts against McDonalds. They were in disbelief that McDonald's had refused to lower their temperatures or even warn customers. They wanted to send a message. Even the $3 million punitive damage wasn't as outrageous as we might think. It was 2 days worth of coffee sales.
Now, the judge reduced the award to around $600,000 and then McDonalds and the lady worked from there. I'd guess the biggest thing McDonalds went for from there was non-disclosure of what they agreed to, a permanent silencing. $600,000 was nothing to them if they only had to pay one person.
However, the lady and many others got what she wanted, a change, recognizing and addressing a problem.
I often criticize the jury system and certainly on technical and contract issues. However, perhaps cases like this are it at it's best, as an advocate for all of us. Sometimes it's there for the little guy. To those of us with businesses, it's a reminder, if it's not absolutely clear cut and it's a customer vs. us we'll likely lose. A tenant advocate I know warned a landlord by asking if he really wanted a jury trial. The warning was "On the jury, how many owners of 10,000 apartment units do you think there will be and how many who have rented apartments?"
Now we also depend on judges and appeals courts to rebalance things. Just remember, the 79 year old lady who sued McDonalds wasn't being frivolous and if you look carefully at the facts you'll agree McDonald's was wrong. $700 and $800 payouts were not getting their attention.
bfloyd4445
Guru
I have and i see no fault on McDonalds side. McDonalds did not place the coffee between the ladies lkegs the lady did that. The most often requested item from my customers was to make sure the coffee was piping hot. For some it can never be to hot. The fact is you can't please everyone and no company should have to pay for doing their best to try and please all. In my opinion the lady should not have recieved anythin g as it was she that held the cup between her legs instead of inside the drink holders in her car.
I'd assign blame to her too, but wouldn't hold McDonald's blameless. Every expert consulted showed the temperatures too hot and there were regular burns. There are limits and they're capable of knowing and limiting. Combined with a styrofoam cup, just worse. Yes, companies should have to pay for trying to reach customer demands they know are unreasonable. There is such a thing as Corporate Responsibility.
The Judge essentially assigned her 80% of the fault.
