PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court rules against boating industry



Duck
12-04-2002, 10:55 PM
I'll be taking snippets from 12/4 LA Times page3
Business section. This blows.
"In a surprising, unanimous defeat for the boating industry, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that swimmers or boaters who are injured in propeller accidents can sue the engine makers for failing to install propeller guards."
"In 1990 the Coast Guard studied the issue and decided against requiring propeller guards on recreational boats."
"Bush administration lawers may have played a key role in tipping the case in favor of the plantiffs. They filed a brief advising the court that federal transportation officials and the Coast Guard did not intend to prevent states from adoptingmore stringent standards of boat safety."
Sorry to have to report the beginning of the end. Let the comments begin. Duck
:mad: :mad: :mad:

Jordy
12-04-2002, 10:59 PM
RD, better get Barney on the phone and have him open that transom hole back up again. wink

Jordy
12-04-2002, 11:12 PM
I need to figure out who I can sue to be on the cutting edge of the bullshit lawsuit front... I mean, McDonald's coffee was too hot, then fast food makes us fat, now boat propellers are dangerous... What's next? Or do I even want to know. I think it's time to start thinning the lawyer gene pool... :D

MJ19
12-04-2002, 11:14 PM
jordanpaulk:
I need to figure out who I can sue to be on the cutting edge of the bullshit lawsuit front... I mean, McDonald's coffee was too hot, then fast food makes us fat, now boat propellers are dangerous... What's next? Or do I even want to know. I think it's time to start thinning the lawyer gene pool... :D or maybe that's the profession you want to look into? :rolleyes:

Jordy
12-04-2002, 11:23 PM
That's the profession I was looking into. Got a B.S. (imagine that) in Criminal Justice and applied to law school. Decided that wasn't what I wanted to do. The handful of good ones are far outweighed by the crooked slimy fockers that make the rest of them look bad. If you are truly doing it for the good of man, you'll get a degree and work as an overworked underpaid prosecuter for the rest of your days. Otherwise, you work as a prosecutor, make a name for yourself on a big case, then hang out your own shingle and name your own price. How do you think Mr. Johnnie Cocheran got his start? L.A. Prosecutors office ring a bell? Then you name your price "defending" which is lawyerese for finding loopholes to get the same dirtballs off that you have spent the last x number of years putting away. Guess I have too much of a conscience to do to that. How do you think that attorney that defended the asshole who killed that little girl in San Diego lives with himself after dragging the family through the mud? I suppose you just go numb to what a total focking insensitive slimeball you become.
Sorry to go off on a rant.
Jordy
[ December 04, 2002, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: jordanpaulk ]

gigamurph
12-04-2002, 11:34 PM
jordanpaulk:
I need to figure out who I can sue to be on the cutting edge of the bullshit lawsuit front... I mean, McDonald's coffee was too hot, then fast food makes us fat, now boat propellers are dangerous... What's next? Or do I even want to know. I think it's time to start thinning the lawyer gene pool... :D I'm suin' Jordy for muddlin' up my mind with all of his rhetoric! Oh! Wait! My mind's been muddled forever! Nevermind!
:D

miller19j
12-05-2002, 12:05 AM
I am a little lost here. How can you sue an engine maker for not putting on a prop guard? There must be more to this story than that. The term Vague and Ambiguous comes to mind here. Can you post a link to the complete story?

Rexone
12-05-2002, 12:15 AM
I'm just hearing about this earlier today. Here's a link to Boating industry on the subject:
http://www.boatbiz.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=36546
There are links within this article that will give you a little more background on it.
I guess the next thing we'll need it tire guards on our cars so they can't run over anything. Or perhaps thermometers on our coffee cups that automatically beep when the coffee's too hot to drink. All these fockers who can't take responsibility for their fockups really piss me off. Run over with prop = dead... duh! :mad:
[ December 05, 2002, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Rexone ]

Rexone
12-05-2002, 12:30 AM
I'm glad you didn't become a lawyer Jordy because then I'd have to hate you! And couldn't talk about your choice of carburetor intake mechinisms freely without fear of a lawsuit. :D

miller19j
12-05-2002, 12:35 AM
This appears to be one isolated case. But it could create a president for other cases to follow. If I am reading this correctly it has not concluded and the supreme court has just ruled that it can move on to another appeals court(a state court).
Quote from the link provided by Rexone
“The ruling allows the case to move forward in the Illinois state court, said NMMA. The court did not comment on the appropriateness of propeller guards nor did it find Brunswick Corp., parent company of the defendant, Mercury Marine, to be liable for the incident that led to this case.”
The following is from another link. It appears that the jurisdiction for this is now not only on the federal level but the stat level as well.
“The US Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, December 3 in the case Sprietsma vs. Mercury Marine that the Federal Boat Safety Act does not protect marine manufacturers from being sued in state court, a decision that may mean more lawsuits over boating accidents, according to several news reports.
Under this ruling, marine manufacturers also now may have to satisfy the regulations of 50 states, rather than just the federal government.”
It appears that the LA times has tainted this issue. Not surprising. But there is no mention in any of the documentation that I can find of any involvement by the Bush administration. Except for the supreme court judges who are appointed to handle such matters.
According to what I have read all it means is that you can now sue a manufacturer in a state court. It does not mean that the case will be successful. But it is definitely worth keeping an eye on. If the case is successful be ready to see increases of boat prices in the future.

RiverToysJas
12-05-2002, 12:37 AM
RiverDave:
**** that.. I'll just make sure to run em over twice.
RDYou don't have to worry. You're your own engine manufacturer, so you'll already be sued over the injury or death.
Seems this ruling will raise the cost of new boats once again. Back to building our own boats and motors I guess.
RTJas

miller19j
12-05-2002, 12:37 AM
Rexone:
I'm glad you didn't become a lawyer Jordy because then I'd have to hate you! And couldn't talk about your choice of carburetor intake mechinisms freely without fear of a lawsuit. :D The law offices of Velocity Stack, Velocity Stack, and Paulk
:D wink

Duck
12-05-2002, 12:45 AM
If Merc ever puts out a prop guard, somebody will end up sticking their toes in it to test it, and try to pick up more $. I'm buffing my blades this weekend.

Laveyman
12-05-2002, 05:25 AM
RiverDave:
**** that.. I'll just make sure to run em over twice.
RDMy thoughts exactly! Dead people can't sue.
Wife says - "Oh gosh dear, you just ran over that focking idiot who was swimming behind your boat while the engine was running."
Husband replies - "Sure as shit. Where's he at so I can make sure to remove the moron from the gene pool."
jawdrop
[ December 05, 2002, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Laveyman ]

hd&boatrider
12-05-2002, 07:38 AM
First off sorry this is so long. I was very pissed off yesterday and maybe this will help me calm down a bit.
Speaking of lawyers I had an interesting conversation with the ATTY representing me yesterday concerning my motorcycle accident. Quick overview: I was riding my Harley with my girlfriend on the back. We are going down a back road at 40 MPH (the speed limit) and a semi-truck is off the r side of the road with his right blinker on. As we get closer with the intention of just riding by him he flips a ****in' u-turn right in front of us. I swerve r and the **** continues his u-turn. I hit the brakes and start to fishtail so I let off the brakes regain control and then reapply them. Start to fishtail again and the truck is still coming over cutting off the oncoming traffic also. I let off the brakes again and miss a tree and head into a crowded parking lot. At that point I lay the bike down and come to rest under a parked truck in a parking lot on the opposite side of the street. The truck continues his u-turn and starts to drive away. We had many witnesses who chased him down and basically threatened to pull him out of the truck and whip his ass if he did not stop immediately. Anyhow, the skid mark 2 months later indicates I was going 57 MPH which is a crock. In the meeting I asked where is my buddies skid marks which would have been behind mine since he was following me. Nobody knows, however it is my contention that his skid marks directly connected to mine since he took the same direct path except he was starting from a further back position. It is the only explanation. Here is my problem with all of this. The Atty did not have the PI go out to the site for over 2 months and of course the friggin' skid marks are no longer there. Then the Atty suggested in the meeting yesterday that my gf is an innocent party and if the accident is found to be my fault (bullshit) thne she should sue me. Talk about offended. ****ing Atty's. They can all go to hell as far as I am concerned!

Seadog
12-05-2002, 12:20 PM
It is one thing to sue an individual or company that did something wrong, as did the trucker. But if the trucker made the turn in front of you, why should they be allowed to sue Freightliner or Kenworth simply because they have more money? TOGLIADL burningm

mbrown2
12-05-2002, 12:31 PM
Even if this Lawsuit does not make it through the State Court, it still means Merc and other Manufactures will have to spend more on legal fees to defend themselves in State courts...As if Merc Engines were not enough already...they will go up more because of this shit...also, if the Courts rule in the Plaintiffs favor we will be running around with Prop-Guards, So we pay more for new slower engines, and the lawyers make more money...sucks...Start writing to your Supreme Court representatives now...

Liberator TJ1984
12-05-2002, 12:39 PM
Damn , this means I can sue placediverter for the reverse bucket coming down and pinching my finger because I had my head up my ass when I told someone to move the lever !!!!! This sue happy shit has to end somewhere ..ouch ...oh wait my Fruit of the Looms just pinched a Nut...How much is that worth ??? J/K USofA has a problem

Jordy
12-05-2002, 12:42 PM
mbrown2:
Start writing to your Supreme Court representatives now...Sorry, but we don't have Supreme Court Representatives. They are appointed for life for that very reason, so they don't have to answer to anyone, even the President who appointed them. Once they are there, they are there. This way they do what ever they want and dont have to worry about not being re-elected, like Gary Condit for example.

HavasuDreamin'
12-05-2002, 12:44 PM
You ever wonder why that prescription drug you need is sooooooooooooooooooooo f'n expensive? Not because of extnesive R&D, not because of X, Y, or Z, but because of all the fricken lawsuits the pharmaceutical companies have to fend off year, after year, after year.
My point is, the boating industry is slowing going the same way.............every body suing everybody because of stupid shit they should have known about in the first place. So now the manufactures will have to pay higher premiums for insurance coverage because bobby sue stuck her fingers in the prop. In turn the manufactures will pass the increased overhead along to the consumer in the form of higher boat prices. :mad:
I am surprised at how any manufacture stays in business these days with all the stupid, get rich quick, a$$holes in this country! I blame stupid people as much as I do the lawyers! :mad:

mbrown2
12-05-2002, 12:59 PM
jordanpaulk:
mbrown2:
Start writing to your Supreme Court representatives now...Sorry, but we don't have Supreme Court Representatives. They are appointed for life for that very reason, so they don't have to answer to anyone, even the President who appointed them. Once they are there, they are there. This way they do what ever they want and dont have to worry about not being re-elected, like Gary Condit for example.Yeah, I know they are there for life, but from their website, they provide info on how to write to them on questions...However, since this ruling basically sent it back to the state level (Supreme always likes the states to decide these matters)...maybe we should be writing to the our States Supreme Court judges or State Appeals court judges..

Jordy
12-05-2002, 01:05 PM
Now you're on to something. I don't know about Cali, but in Arizona, the trial level judges are elected, as are the Superior Court judges, who handle the lower courts appeals. I think the State Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life as well. Same theory as the high court.

mbrown2
12-05-2002, 01:19 PM
In Cali...the Supreme Court justices serve 12 year terms, and on the appeals side, the have three justices for each district, one with a 4 year term, one with an 8 year term, and one with a 12 year term. All these folks are appointed by the governor, so there goes the neighborhood in our case.

Seadog
12-05-2002, 02:59 PM
What is needed is some serious curbs on lawsuits which can be done thru legislation. 90% of all civil cases should be handled by a neutral arbitor with anonymous judicial oversight. Punitive judgements should be limited to 100% of actual damages. 'Expert testimony' should be restricted to selection by the court, not the plaintifs. The lawyers always say they want to send a message to the companies. The message is they are greedy and don't mind killing the golden goose if they get theirs first. There should also be strong punishment for unwarrantted lawsuite to include sanctions and fines.

ssmike
12-05-2002, 03:33 PM
OK,
Sorry folks but you all are overreacting just a bit. I just read the decision, not a report of the decision from the "Left Angeles Times" or any other news media agency. This case is solely about "pre-emption." That's it. It did not, repeat, did not create a new avenue for litigation.
The survivor (husband) of the woman killed in the boating accident was suing on numerous products liability theories, which are "common law" theories of recovery. (This means that they came from England, pre-revolution, pre-independence, and pre-America).
The Supreme Court held that these theories of recovery were not "pre-empted" or "precluded" by several federal laws. In the state court litigation, several Illinois state courts had previously held that the suit was pre-empted by the federal law.
Please feel free to PM or email me if anyone wants to read the opinion. It's about 10 pages and not that interesting.
By the way, I love lawyer jokes (as do my lawyer friends).
ssmike
(don't hate) (you might need to ask me a question some time and I'm sure you would appreciate a straight answer)

spectras only
12-05-2002, 04:48 PM
I can see the revival of v-drives again .No dumb drunk can fall on the prop . I wonder when is cessna corp will be sued not having guards on their planes props.Or better ,will we see guards on appliances ? They burn skin more efficiently than McDonalds's coffee eek! .The major assholes are the ones who let this cases even have a ground for argument :mad: . Coffee too hot,give me a brake !
[ December 05, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: spectras only ]

rustyk
12-05-2002, 05:46 PM
Its like this .Remember when all of us grew up on three wheelers instead of fours. I had the first Honda atc90 in 1975. Now because of stupied people that can't ride or just let any kid ride something without teaching them we no longer have three wheelers to ride wheelies and sideways.
I do know a close family that basically lost their youngest son because he went over the handle bars at the beach and he had bad head injuries so that he doesn't even remember his childhood or even now is slightly retarded.They didn't sue Honda because it was his fault,NOT THE MANUFACTURE.
rk

miller19j
12-05-2002, 05:55 PM
I wonder when is cessna corp will be sued not having guards on their planes propsCessna and Piper were both sued for having Gust Locks on their planes. They were devices that kept the controls in place when the plane was being stored. Apparently several Dumbasses got into their planes drunk and tried to take off unsuccessfully. Well ignoring the fact that the dumbasses were drunk courts ruled in their favor. Now you will not see Gust Locks on piper planes. As a matter of fact they stopped making some of the small planes for a while.

jacuzer
12-05-2002, 08:59 PM
Question...
Aren't these idiot cases decided by juries?
How many times have you tried to get out of Jury Duty?
I know I have tried EVERY time.
Makes me think!!!
Kevin

DaveA
12-05-2002, 09:23 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder when is cessna corp will be sued not having guards on their planes props
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cessna and Piper were both sued for having Gust Locks on their planes. They were devices that kept the controls in place when the plane was being stored. Apparently several Dumbasses got into their planes drunk and tried to take off unsuccessfully. Well ignoring the fact that the dumbasses were drunk courts ruled in their favor. Now you will not see Gust Locks on piper planes. As a matter of fact they stopped making some of the small planes for a while. "
The product liability laws regarding general aviation manufacturers were amended a few years ago to limits of 18 years of airframe age (if memory serves). This reduces the liklihood of idiots suing Piper recently for not having a shoulder harness as original equipment in a 1951 Super Cub. Sheesh.

Seadog
12-06-2002, 08:03 AM
I lost all respect for the legal system when this played out: Parents gave kid a hot Mustang to drive. He got bombed and drove it at 140 mph. A tire went, end of kid. The parents sued and won against Ford because they did not have tires that were rated for the top speed of the vehicle. Now most vehicles have governors set at 85-95 mph to prevent that stupidity factor. The legal profession always have rationalizations for their greed, but PT Barnum had it correct.

spectras only
12-06-2002, 10:21 AM
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Seadog:
The parents sued and won against Ford because they did not have tires that were rated for the top speed of the vehicle.[b/] I have a mustang GT ,they come with the "Z" rated tires from the factory [optional for us speedfreaks :p ].If you fail to read the tire rating on your vehicle you operate,isn't it as bad as not reading posted speeds :rolleyes: .Hard to believe those parents won :( .

twistedpair
12-06-2002, 10:31 AM
The courts are definitely out of touch. I just heard this morning that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in The People's Republic of San Francisco has concluded that there is no 2nd ammendment right to keep and bear arms! Thank God, none of mine are registered.

HM
12-06-2002, 02:07 PM
twistedpair:
The courts are definitely out of touch. I just heard this morning that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in The People's Republic of San Francisco has concluded that there is no 2nd ammendment right to keep and bear arms! Thank God, none of mine are registered.Close, they said no "indivdual" is given the right to bear arms from the 2nd Amendment. Still bullshit.

HighRoller
12-06-2002, 03:10 PM
It's pretty simple why this goes on.Yes,the lawyers are all slimy,but if any judge had half a set of balls he'd throw out all this frivilous lawsuits.But what is a judge?Nothing but a lawyer with more power,and when it comes to choosing between defending the rights of citizens or allowing his lawyer buddies to hit the jackpot,you know what he's gonna choose!!Somewhere down the line he'll get something in return from said lawyer.Of course it doesn't help that we the jetboaters bribed the judge in the case.....oops did I say that?I can't wait to see all the badass 100mph cats running around at 40mph because their prop guard is slowing them down!!! :p

HCS
12-06-2002, 03:47 PM
I'll never put a prop guard on my boat no matter what it looks like or how it functions!. They can all **** OFF! :mad: :D

HCS
12-06-2002, 03:52 PM
The 9th circuit court of appeals are a bunch of fags like the rest of the people in SF. I got guns and they aren't touching those either! because they don't know I have them!

sandblasted
12-06-2002, 07:11 PM
I read about another stupid frivilous lawsuit in the paper today...Some dad is pissed off because his 16 year old son wasn't voted as "most outstanding player" in his hockey league...apparently the kid scored the most goals and had the most assists but only 1 coach out of 12 voted for him...Too bad, get over it dad! Instead he files a lawsuit but today the judge threw it out and told the lawyer and dad they should be ashamed of themselves..
Guess what...The dad wants to appeal! what a moron..

sandblasted
12-06-2002, 07:49 PM
twistedpair:
The courts are definitely out of touch. I just heard this morning that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in The People's Republic of San Francisco has concluded that there is no 2nd ammendment right to keep and bear arms! Thank God, none of mine are registered.Too bad for them the 5th Circuit Court ruled that "the people" do have the right to bear arms so now it will go to the U.S. supreme court..here's an article on it..
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4679253.htm

Rexone
12-07-2002, 02:37 AM
miller19j:
Rexone:
I'm glad you didn't become a lawyer Jordy because then I'd have to hate you! And couldn't talk about your choice of carburetor intake mechinisms freely without fear of a lawsuit. :D The law offices of Velocity Stack, Velocity Stack, and Paulk
:D wink Or how bout "Flower, Pot, & Paulk" :D

lambertjr
12-07-2002, 07:42 PM
Duck:
I'll be taking snippets from 12/4 LA Times page3
Business section. This blows.
"In a surprising, unanimous defeat for the boating industry, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that swimmers or boaters who are injured in propeller accidents can sue the engine makers for failing to install propeller guards."
"In 1990 the Coast Guard studied the issue and decided against requiring propeller guards on recreational boats."
"Bush administration lawers may have played a key role in tipping the case in favor of the plantiffs. They filed a brief advising the court that federal transportation officials and the Coast Guard did not intend to prevent states from adoptingmore stringent standards of boat safety."
Sorry to have to report the beginning of the end. Let the comments begin. Duck
:mad: :mad: :mad: Well here's an idea..........Don't swim under the boat if the engine is running.
If someone is stupid enough to do so, they deserve to get their ass sliced into cutlets.

GBLASER
12-10-2002, 12:44 PM
Hey I've got it......I am going to sue because I have no money left at the end of the summer...I'm addicted and it's not my fault. Let me know how many have the same problem and maybe this can be a class action......We could be rich!!!!!!!!!