It happened again. Scary month to be a boat manufacturer

[TenTwentyOne]

Saw this on wake world. Yamaha gets sued because a jet ski only steers while under power..... More like parenting fail/Really bad luck. Really unfortunate situation...... Once again, the manufacturer was not really at fault.

http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=788105

Edited June 14, 2011 by TenTwentyOne

[Levi900RR]

I didnt read the article but that is horrible... No wonder Sea Doo is putting steering rudders and brakes on their boats now...

[Indyxc]

I didnt read the article but that is horrible... No wonder Sea Doo is putting steering rudders and brakes on their boats now...

Wow, unreal. I wish I could prosecute the victim's parents for being irresponsible in letting their daughters use the waverunner without training and by indirectly for increasing the cost and required safety features for personal watercraft.

I can't believe the jury even sided with the plantiff on this one.

[cbmalibu98]

Let the law suits begin. Agian a very bad situation, and having had personal watercrafts since the early 80's the inability to steer when you are not under power is well known. Maybe the answer is that we have to have a operators liscense for the type of watercraft you operate. kind of like getting a motorcycle permit. In missouri you only need to get a generic operator boat permit at the age of 14. My son just got his and while it covers the basic rules of the lake it does nothing for basic operation of a boat or a PWC. That is where I have been the instructer. PWC's are faster and more porweful that ever, while they are a blast to ride letting an inexperienced operator take off on a 60+mph missle is asking fore trouble. Just a thought.

CB

[Stanley Wheelhouse]

blaming the maker for operator error is the way of the aviation business. it drove prices to unaffordable levels. now the only ones who can afford planes are the rich lawyers who sued the aircraft makers for some idiot unskilled in aviation doctor killing himself in a Cessna or Piper product.

[kengrutza]

This is a sad and unfortunate accident and 1 girl has lost her life and another is seriously injured for hers. I feel for their families and for the surviving girl.

However, this is not the Manufacturers' fault. This is another example of the litigious nature of our society. It harkens back to the lady who spilled McDonalds coffee on herself and was awarded millions because there was no warning label stating the contents of her coffee were "hot". Where is the owner of the Jetskis in this situation? Was it not his responsibility to make sure these girls were responsible and able to handle the craft?

I have a friend who had to stop producing a worthwhile instrument to help industry because he couldn't take the chance of being sued if someone untrained used this tool.

Would you let your 14 year old take your car out for a spin? No, would you let them take your motorcycle? No. What has happened to common sense?

I have trained my children to be responsible behind the wheel of boats and cars. It is my responsibility to do this as a parent. My Dad taught me. I'm not going to let someone I have no idea of their level of understanding or responsibility drive something I bought and paid for.

Do we really want the Government inserting themselves into the water world we enjoy responsibly? I don't. But, in some ways there has to be a way to protect the manufacturers from this kind of foolish lawsuit and the millions it will cost them. Do Manufacturers need to be accountable for design flaws and errors on their part? Yes by all means but there is no amount of re-design that compensates for stupid and irresponsible!

Every year there are more signs and verbage saying what we can and can;t do on the water on my lake. Every year I see the Jetskiers continue to do foolish and downright stupid things with them.

It is tragic that this girl lost her life and her friend is seriously hurt and maybe there will be some good things that come out of the Manufacturers making their craft safer.

IN the meantime, shouldn't we as responsible boat owners/operators, who have made significant investments in our craft, take responsibility to train everyone operating our crafts to be responsible with them?

[Chia]

This is a sad and unfortunate accident and 1 girl has lost her life and another is seriously injured for hers. I feel for their families and for the surviving girl.

However, this is not the Manufacturers' fault. This is another example of the litigious nature of our society. It harkens back to the lady who spilled McDonalds coffee on herself and was awarded millions because there was no warning label stating the contents of her coffee were "hot". Where is the owner of the Jetskis in this situation? Was it not his responsibility to make sure these girls were responsible and able to handle the craft?

I have a friend who had to stop producing a worthwhile instrument to help industry because he couldn't take the chance of being sued if someone untrained used this tool.

Would you let your 14 year old take your car out for a spin? No, would you let them take your motorcycle? No. What has happened to common sense?

I have trained my children to be responsible behind the wheel of boats and cars. It is my responsibility to do this as a parent. My Dad taught me. I'm not going to let someone I have no idea of their level of understanding or responsibility drive something I bought and paid for.

Do we really want the Government inserting themselves into the water world we enjoy responsibly? I don't. But, in some ways there has to be a way to protect the manufacturers from this kind of foolish lawsuit and the millions it will cost them. Do Manufacturers need to be accountable for design flaws and errors on their part? Yes by all means but there is no amount of re-design that compensates for stupid and irresponsible!

Every year there are more signs and verbage saying what we can and can;t do on the water on my lake. Every year I see the Jetskiers continue to do foolish and downright stupid things with them.

It is tragic that this girl lost her life and her friend is seriously hurt and maybe there will be some good things that come out of the Manufacturers making their craft safer.

IN the meantime, shouldn't we as responsible boat owners/operators, who have made significant investments in our craft, take responsibility to train everyone operating our crafts to be responsible with them?

Not sure if the McDonalds case is a good example of what you are trying say.

The lady in that case tried to settle for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses, 8 days in hospital, skin grafts etc.

It was only after McDonalds told her to pound sand did she get a lawyer, who soon found documentation that McDonalds wanted to have the hottest coffee in the industry and served their coffee at 190F. Her lawyer was able to show that if spilled at that temp the scald effect happens too quickly to react to.

They ended up settling for an amount less than $600,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Manufacturers have a responsibility to manufacture a safe product or at least to recognize the hazards and warn users that when used in a certain manner bad things can happen.

[85 Barefoot]

This is a sad and unfortunate accident and 1 girl has lost her life and another is seriously injured for hers. I feel for their families and for the surviving girl.

However, this is not the Manufacturers' fault. This is another example of the litigious nature of our society. It harkens back to the lady who spilled McDonalds coffee on herself and was awarded millions because there was no warning label stating the contents of her coffee were "hot". Where is the owner of the Jetskis in this situation? Was it not his responsibility to make sure these girls were responsible and able to handle the craft?

I have a friend who had to stop producing a worthwhile instrument to help industry because he couldn't take the chance of being sued if someone untrained used this tool.

Would you let your 14 year old take your car out for a spin? No, would you let them take your motorcycle? No. What has happened to common sense?

I have trained my children to be responsible behind the wheel of boats and cars. It is my responsibility to do this as a parent. My Dad taught me. I'm not going to let someone I have no idea of their level of understanding or responsibility drive something I bought and paid for.

Do we really want the Government inserting themselves into the water world we enjoy responsibly? I don't. But, in some ways there has to be a way to protect the manufacturers from this kind of foolish lawsuit and the millions it will cost them. Do Manufacturers need to be accountable for design flaws and errors on their part? Yes by all means but there is no amount of re-design that compensates for stupid and irresponsible! Every year there are more signs and verbage saying what we can and can;t do on the water on my lake. Every year I see the Jetskiers continue to do foolish and downright stupid things with them.

It is tragic that this girl lost her life and her friend is seriously hurt and maybe there will be some good things that come out of the Manufacturers making their craft safer.

IN the meantime, shouldn't we as responsible boat owners/operators, who have made significant investments in our craft, take responsibility to train everyone operating our crafts to be responsible with them?

That had nothing to do with that case. It had to do with the fact that McD's sold their coffee significantly higher than the industry standard temperature and would burn in seconds. Lady had skin grafts from all over and not to mention the judge knocked the verdict way down.

How is it any less stupid and irrepsonsible for a manufacturer to make a product that doesn't steer off power when they know (and now do) make them so they do? I wonder how many lives have been saved as a result of the design change? I don't know details of verdict but nothing is as simple as saying any party is 100% at fault. Could be that the girl was in fact apportioned with some of the responsibility. Doesn't mean if you make a product that you know darn well how to make it safer you don't have a responsibility to do it.

[Lance B. Johnson]

You guys all understand that 85 barefoot will always take the exact opposite arguement of whatever the general opinion seems to be. Personally I don't believe that he really has any values, moral or otherwise, that he calls his own. The purpose of the posts that he makes is to stir the pot, nothing more.

That said if you really enjoy your banter with him go for it. Just don't waste any emotional energy in the exchange.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Ruffdog

[85 Barefoot]

You guys all understand that 85 barefoot will always take the exact opposite arguement of whatever the general opinion seems to be. Personally I don't believe that he really has any values, moral or otherwise, that he calls his own. The purpose of the posts that he makes is to stir the pot, nothing more.

That said if you really enjoy your banter with him go for it. Just don't waste any emotional energy in the exchange.

That's not true. I will voice a contrarian opinion on things I disgaree with. There's a lot said on the site that I do agree with. But I don't see the point in racking up my post count by just saying I agree. In this and the MC thread, I just don't think it's as simple as saying the drivers are 100% responsible...and by the way, I'm not alone in that, obviously, clearly two juries agreed....and if anyone is using up "emotional energy" responding to me, they should reevaluate their life. Responding to me is hardly worth such an expenditure, nor do I seek it. I'm just a guy with an opinion that is differnet than most (on this), and apparently yours. Ignore, respond, send me a expletive-laden PM, I don't care.

[Calexan]

My boat only backs up to the right.... Can I sue somebody if I run into a dock or hit somebody haha

[Lance B. Johnson]

My boat only backs up to the right.... Can I sue somebody if I run into a dock or hit somebody haha

Yes.

[MARiley]

isn't it common knowledge that jetdrives have NEVER steered unless under power?

[MARiley]

reminds me of why aircraft are so expensive. some 'hole goes up, runs out of gas, emergency lands poorly, gets injured, and "IT WAS CESSNA'S FAULT THE PLANE RAN OUT OF FUEL", and VOILA! $75m judgement levied on the manufacturer. this is one reason my dad left the airplane industry.

[TenTwentyOne]

My boat only backs up to the right.... Can I sue somebody if I run into a dock or hit somebody haha

According to 85barefoots theory, yes. These inboard manufacturers have known for years that there are ways to make these boats back up correctly. Being as they have not resolved that, we should all be very careful when backing up..... Oh wait, nevermind, we can just blame the manufacturer...

Not to mention that our boats dont exactly steer that great when off the throttle either...... So, malibu is left wide open to get sued for the same exact situation as yamaha....

isn't it common knowledge that jetdrives have NEVER steered unless under power?

Yes, yes it is. It is also a well known theory that if jetski's had rudders, they would kill more people.....

As for the technology that has helped to steer newer jetskis when off power- That is more for slow speed maneuvering, they still dont really steer when at speed and off the throttle......

Edited June 14, 2011 by TenTwentyOne

[85 Barefoot]

isn't it common knowledge that jetdrives have NEVER steered unless under power?

If, by "common knowledge" you mean the general public, absolutely not. Have you seen people's faces when you tell them PWCs don't steer unless under power? Of course, PWCs do brake and steer now. I wonder how many lives that's saved?

[85 Barefoot]

According to 85barefooter, yes. These inboard manufacturers have known for years that there are ways to make these boats back up correctly. Being as they have not resolved that, we should all be very careful when backing up..... Oh wait, nevermind, we can just blame the manufacturer...

Not to mention that our boats dont exactly steer that great when off the throttle either...... So, malibu is left wide open to get sued for the same exact situation as yamaha....

Yes, yes it is. It is also a well known theory that if jetski's had rudders, they would kill more people.....

As for the technology that has helped to steer newer jetskis when off power- That is more for slow speed maneuvering, they still dont really steer when at speed and off the throttle......

I have never said such a thing. The circumstances are not comparable, especially when a driver like Calexan is aware of that handling characteristic.

That's a convenient theory I suppose. Does it outweigh the dangers of making a craft that doesn't turn unless under power? I dunno.

[jkendallmsce]

You guys all understand that 85 barefoot will always take the exact opposite arguement of whatever the general opinion seems to be. Personally I don't believe that he really has any values, moral or otherwise, that he calls his own. The purpose of the posts that he makes is to stir the pot, nothing more.

That said if you really enjoy your banter with him go for it. Just don't waste any emotional energy in the exchange.

85 is this site's version of the schoolyard bully. Verbal bullying is just as satisfying to 85, as when the schoolyad bully beats up the weakest kid in school. He gets his ya ya's off by arguing with the masses. Or maybe 85 is one that flunked outta law school...so he knows just enough to be dangerous!! ha ha

So 85 is this one of those "assumed" risks a person takes when leaving the house/starts the PWC w/o taking time to read the manual, knowing how to start it but NOT stop it before taking off and skimming across the water at 60+ mph?? They only knew how to go fast, and did not think about stopping??? until it was tooo late.

I did not read the link...but what about the owner of the PWC??...giving the PWC to someone who did not know how to safely operate the vehicle. Was the the manufacturer's fault??

Lawyers like a jury of softheaded types who rely on their emotions rather than facts. Maybe 85 is one of those softheaded types??? hmm

From another link:

If the girls had not told Holly that they knew how to operate a water scooter, Mueller said, Holly would not have let them take it out on the Intracoastal Waterway, which was crowded with holiday boat traffic. Further, Mueller said, Archer was not 16, the legal age to drive water scooters in Florida.

"Sadly and regrettably, an underage, unlicensed, untrained and inexperienced young girl was out in an environment, a very congested waterway. That's why the accident happened," he told the newspaper.

So who is at fault here??? Yamaha or the ower of the PWC?? To allow an underage person to operate the vehilce...maybe they should have had her sign some kinda waiver????

Edited June 14, 2011 by jkendallmsce

[TenTwentyOne]

I have never said such a thing. The circumstances are not comparable, especially when a driver like Calexan is aware of that handling characteristic.

That's a convenient theory I suppose. Does it outweigh the dangers of making a craft that doesn't turn unless under power? I dunno.

Thats why i stated that it was your "theory". If you follow your frame of thought on the matter, that would be exactly the same thing..... I didnt say that you said it specifically.....

More than a hundred people are hit by a jetski every year, and most survive. If there was a rudder on them, most would probably die.... I will admit that you wouldnt know for sure until you tried, but it makes perfect sense...... Get hit with mostly smooth surface=better chance of living compared to being hit with smooth surfaces + 8" blade.

[DIE2SURF]

...and the countdown to "ThreadLock" has begun.

[85 Barefoot]

85 is this site's version of the schoolyard bully. Verbal bullying is just as satisfying to 85, as when the schoolyad bully beats up the weakest kid in school. He gets his ya ya's off by arguing with the masses. Or maybe 85 is one that flunked outta law school...so he knows just enough to be dangerous!! ha ha

So 85 is this one of those "assumed" risks a person takes when leaving the house/starts the PWC w/o taking time to read the manual, knowing how to start it but NOT stop it before taking off and skimming across the water at 60+ mph?? They only knew how to go fast, and did not think about stopping??? until it was tooo late.

I did not read the link...but what about the owner of the PWC??...giving the PWC to someone who did not know how to safely operate the vehicle. Was the the manufacturer's fault??

Lawyers like a jury of softheaded types who rely on their emotions rather than facts.

Maybe 85 is one of those softheaded types??? hmm

Bully, huh? Weird. I haven't said a derogatory word about anyone.

I don't know about me being "softheaded". When you look at the facts, there was a manufacturer who built something that couldn't steer when they knew how to design one that did. In my opinion, it seems the emotional reaction is jump to the defense of marine manufacturers and overstepping governmental regulations. Now why would I think that?

[85 Barefoot]

it appears this case wasn't even reported on accurately:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/pb-waverunner-big-verdict-20110610,0,5958142.story

Not only a lot less but there was blame put on the parent.

[85 Barefoot]

Thats why i stated that it was your "theory". If you follow your frame of thought on the matter, that would be exactly the same thing..... I didnt say that you said it specifically.....

More than a hundred people are hit by a jetski every year, and most survive. If there was a rudder on them, most would probably die.... I will admit that you wouldnt know for sure until you tried, but it makes perfect sense...... Get hit with mostly smooth surface=better chance of living compared to being hit with smooth surfaces + 8" blade.

Then I'm not following you. I have expressed no "frame of thought" as to the safety or nonsafety of inboards backing only to the right. But as a practical matter I see it as being quite different.

I assume that comes from a reported story? How many accidents are from jetskis inability to turn off power? Given the other article, sounds like that industry is the shoe-in winner of these trials anyway. Sounds like a lot of accidents to generate that amount of litigation.

Edited June 14, 2011 by 85 Barefoot

[TenTwentyOne]

Then I'm not following you. I have expressed no "frame of thought" as to the safety or nonsafety of inboards backing only to the right. But as a practical matter I see it as being quite different.

Your right, I am wrong, one watercraft that doesnt steer correctly, is completely different than another watercraft that doesnt steer correctly.

[Bobby Light]

TenTwentyOne - I think you just figured out how a discussion with 85 goes EVERYTIME.