It happened again. Scary month to be a boat manufacturer

[85 Barefoot]

Who said anything about low speed maneuvering?? We were talking higher speeds....... And Malibu does know how to fix low speed maneuvering....its called "Dual Engines"

What you were speaking to was handling once you backed off the throttle. Since these boats are high-drag, low-coast boats, speed is bled immediately. I can't respond to both you and kendall without someone (me) being accused of flip-flopping and enticing personal blows, so I'm not going to respond to anymore soliciation of speculation on what Malibu engineers consider as I have no idea.

[MARiley]

yamaha being at fault in any way is bullcrap and everyone knows it. people at fault in this tragedy are: the parents for not properly instructing their daughter on the operation of the vessel, and the girl, for operating it in an unsafe manner.

i remember when my family got a waverunner (IT'S BEEN GONE FOR 15 YEARS. I PROMISE) and my dad showed me how they don't respond unless "you put your foot into it."

people need to take responsibility for their actions.

[85 Barefoot]

If the debate is over high speed maneuvering with a Malibu then I think everyone is confused as to their boats capabilities. Take your boat to speed. Say 35-40. Start a turn. Pull back the throttle while continuing the turn. I guarantee that everyones boat will continue the turn and in fact almost complete a 180 in that very spot.

If the Yamaha would have done that this accident would have been avoided.

I agree completely and that is the exactly the discussion I thought was being had.

[11VLX]

yamaha being at fault in any way is bullcrap and everyone knows it. people at fault in this tragedy are: the parents for not properly instructing their daughter on the operation of the vessel, and the girl, for operating it in an unsafe manner.

i remember when my family got a waverunner (IT'S BEEN GONE FOR 15 YEARS. I PROMISE) and my dad showed me how they don't respond unless "you put your foot into it."

people need to take responsibility for their actions.

Everyone knows it?

I don't, I don't think Barefoot 85 does, a judge didn't, and jury didn't.

Seems more like a few people know it (or think they do) but they are also the people who know very little of the facts and simply post opinions without facts. I certainly hope they are never in this type of a situation but would venture to guess their opinions would change if they were.

[85 Barefoot]

yamaha being at fault in any way is bullcrap and everyone knows it. people at fault in this tragedy are: the parents for not properly instructing their daughter on the operation of the vessel, and the girl, for operating it in an unsafe manner.

i remember when my family got a waverunner (IT'S BEEN GONE FOR 15 YEARS. I PROMISE) and my dad showed me how they don't respond unless "you put your foot into it."

people need to take responsibility for their actions.

Well the only people who listened to weeks of testimony clearly disgareed with you.

...but lets use your example a second. Let's assume your Dad did give you that lesson. But nonetheless, you're out acting like a 15 year old and you hit someone in the water who will require medical care their entire lives, which you will never be able to afford. Are we as a society OK with that? Or do (must) we allow injured people to pursue their rights? Why is it a victim's burden to live with the damage you caused them when a manufacturer KNEW how to make a safer design?....and let's also assume your Dad, the owner, was like MANY PWC owners whose personal assets are not extravagant and buys minimal IF ANY laibility coverage...carry on

Edited June 14, 2011 by 85 Barefoot

[Bill_AirJunky]

Going with your paddle board example which is not comparable probably not.

As far as your desk chair goes if it breaks due to a manufacturers defect then sure. Just think how sad your family would be if your chair manufacturer knew there was a defect in its design and knew there was a fix and didn't do it and you in fact did fall out as a result and broke your neck. Should your family be left to take care of you and pay your medical expenses? Or should the manufacturer who knew that their chair was faulty? If it happens to me you better believe I don't want my family footing the bill.

Hi 11VLX,

I was mostly kidding... especially about the desk chair. Lets face it, if I fall out of my chair, it's probably from laughing too hard at the likes of this thread. I'll cut everyone some slack & take a few % of responsibility on that.

But the paddleboard thing, I was almost kinda serious. Lets face it, someone who has ZERO personal responsibility for their own actions could easily paddle out into a busy shipping lane & get mowed over by a ship. Would it be the ship captains fault? Technically, it may be. But realistically, the person on the paddleboard has to realize that no one can see them very easily & their risking their lives..... or at least I would think that kind of common sense would dawn on most people. Obviously that isn't the case & those idiots bring cases like this to court because there was no decal on board or paddle that says, "Do not paddle in busy traffic or you might be dead".

[MARiley]

"pursue their rights"? at the risk of sounding like a heartless prick, what rights? rights afforded to them by law? civil rights? human rights? c'mon. it's a sad day for everyone, there is not question about that, but why should yamaha be held liable? this is no different than a kid getting a hold of a gun, and accidentally shooting himself or a friend. why is it the firearm manufacturer's fault this tragic event occurred?

the answer to both situations is: because they're an easy target with large pockets.

the only reason car manufacturers aren't held liable for the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of car wrecks is because people are accustomed to them, and therefore generally accept operator error as the main culprit.

[Bobby Light]

hey 11vlx you wouldn't happen to be the "buddy" that 85 was talking about in other threads with the VLX are ya?

[85 Barefoot]

"pursue their rights"? at the risk of sounding like a heartless prick, what rights? rights afforded to them by law? civil rights? human rights? c'mon. it's a sad day for everyone, there is not question about that, but why should yamaha be held liable?

PRECISELY. Have we gotten to the point that those are no longer important?

Edited June 14, 2011 by 85 Barefoot

[Bill_AirJunky]

You're not going to ever hear of a case where that is the issue, don't worry.

I guess I'm not making the point very well. The point is that there is & should be some responsibility taken on by the owner & operator of the PWC, boat, SUP or whatever it is that the person is on. Lets face it, even under the safest of conditions, there is still some risk that the person could have a problem & need to get out of it somehow.

BTW, heres a blog of a guy who is paddling a SUP from Washington to Alaska in the Canadian shipping lanes. http://www.wildhaunts.com/

Not that he's going to sue anyone if he is wiped out, and I'm certainly not worried about it. But if one guy can try it, then others can too.

[85 Barefoot]

I guess I'm not making the point very well. The point is that there is & should be some responsibility taken on by the owner & operator of the PWC, boat, SUP or whatever it is that the person is on. Lets face it, even under the safest of conditions, there is still some risk that the person could have a problem & need to get out of it somehow.

BTW, heres a blog of a guy who is paddling a SUP from Washington to Alaska in the Canadian shipping lanes. http://www.wildhaunts.com/

Not that he's going to sue anyone if he is wiped out, and I'm certainly not worried about it. But if one guy can try it, then others can too.

There is no one saying that there's not. But what do we do when that's not good enough? Tell the victims sorry? Or do we allow them to pursue the manufacturer of products that could be made safer? I posed a scenario a while back that no one has touched. I'd be interested in what you have to say about it.

[MARiley]

PRECISELY. Have we gotten to the point that those are no longer important?

is the parent or guardian or whoever criminally negligent? most definitely, and s/he should be locked up. it's a heart-wrenching story, no doubt, but i still don't believe such a judgement can be levied upon another party because of someone else's misuse.

here's another hypothetical: i'm cooking one night for myself. i receive 3rd degree burns and my hand is permanently disfigured after i grabbed a hot panhandle. why should the pan's manufacturer be held liable? sure, they could have put a rubber or silicone wrap on the handle, and DESPITE KNOWING the modification to the design would prevent such incidents, they didn't. i knew the risks i was taking when i purchased and then later used the item, so i am held liable.

people understand the risks they are taking when they partake in their actions. we all know that jetskis and boating are potentially dangerous activities, yet we accept the risks, and partake in them because the reward of fun far outweighs the risk of injury.

[85 Barefoot]

is the parent or guardian or whoever criminally negligent? most definitely, and s/he should be locked up. it's a heart-wrenching story, no doubt, but i still don't believe such a judgement can be levied upon another party because of someone else's misuse.

here's another hypothetical: i'm cooking one night for myself. i receive 3rd degree burns and my hand is permanently disfigured after i grabbed a hot panhandle. why should the pan's manufacturer be held liable? sure, they could have put a rubber or silicone wrap on the handle, and DESPITE KNOWING the modification to the design would prevent such incidents, they didn't. i knew the risks i was taking when i purchased and then later used the item, so i am held liable.

people understand the risks they are taking when they partake in their actions. we all know that jetskis and boating are potentially dangerous activities, yet we accept the risks, and partake in them because the reward of fun far outweighs the risk of injury.

So in my previous scenario that you have not responded to, what risks had the swimmers accepted when you, a 15 year old operator who had been properly coached on how to use a PWC hit them when you couldn't steer when you let off the throttle. Just you? Your job going to be good enough to pay their bills? their suffering? I'm not saying there are easy answers, but the question is different when the injured people are innocent.

[TheKiwi]

Re: 85s hypothetical situation.

If YOU crashed into someone else, and they sued you that's a different matter. If you sued the manufacturer you would be a moron.

[jkendallmsce]

hey 11vlx you wouldn't happen to be the "buddy" that 85 was talking about in other threads with the VLX are ya?

85 has a buddy??? whoa, that is news to ALOT of folks!!

[Bill_AirJunky]

So in my previous scenario that you have not responded to, what risks had the swimmers accepted when you, a 15 year old operator who had been properly coached on how to use a PWC hit them when you couldn't steer when you let off the throttle. Just you? Your job going to be good enough to pay their bills? their suffering? I'm not saying there are easy answers, but the question is different when the injured people are innocent.

Isn't this the kind of scenario that a boater's insurance is supposed to take care of? Are you asking if just because there are innocent people involved, the manufacturer is now liable? I still think that holding the parent or the PWC owner only 1% liable is a complete crock of sh1+. Those are the TWO PEOPLE who are more like 80% liable!!

Honestly 85, so many of your comments are directed at specific people, in a way that I just don't care to be a part of, that I skip right over your stuff 1/2 the time.

I know your trying to debate, and doing a better job of it lately, but in the not so distant past, it was said/typed/insinuated in a way that a lot of people don't care any more.

[MARiley]

So in my previous scenario that you have not responded to, what risks had the swimmers accepted when you, a 15 year old operator who had been properly coached on how to use a PWC hit them when you couldn't steer when you let off the throttle. Just you? Your job going to be good enough to pay their bills? their suffering? I'm not saying there are easy answers, but the question is different when the injured people are innocent.

it blows and hard times are ahead, but i still don't see how this is any different than a 15 year old driving recklessly in a car, especially a kid from a poorer neighborhood where the cars don't necessarily have insurance. would we go after ford or honda because someone drove irresponsibly and it resulted in a fatal car wreck? i don't think we would.

[11VLX]

hey 11vlx you wouldn't happen to be the "buddy" that 85 was talking about in other threads with the VLX are ya?

and if I am?

[Bobby Light]

and if I am?

Just wondering.

[stroker-ace]

85 has a buddy??? whoa, that is news to ALOT of folks!!

[Calexan]

What we do know is that Yamaha knows how to make their PWCs steer off throttle and had that ski done that here, this accident might not have happened.

Wait.... Have I missed something? What is this fix that Yamaha knows about that would allow steering to occur at high to medium speeds without throttle?

[TenTwentyOne]

If the debate is over high speed maneuvering with a Malibu then I think everyone is confused as to their boats capabilities. Take your boat to speed. Say 35-40. Start a turn. Pull back the throttle while continuing the turn. I guarantee that everyones boat will continue the turn and in fact almost complete a 180 in that very spot.

If the Yamaha would have done that this accident would have been avoided.

Nope. If I start a turn at 40 and then throw the lever all the way to idle, it coast almost straight (slight drift), from the point of throttle down, for about 120-150 feet, and when it gets down to 5mph or so, it starts turning.

What you were speaking to was handling once you backed off the throttle. Since these boats are high-drag, low-coast boats, speed is bled immediately. I can't respond to both you and kendall without someone (me) being accused of flip-flopping and enticing personal blows, so I'm not going to respond to anymore soliciation of speculation on what Malibu engineers consider as I have no idea.

No doubt, they definately slow down faster than a PWC. The report on the case stated that the operator of the Yammy had less than three seconds between letting off and impact. My boat takes at least 5-8 seconds to come to rest from 40MPH.

[snwdvl]

Wow interesting thread…

The question of liability from the manufacturer would be, did Yamaha knowingly release a product that is unsafe? Did they try to cover up this knowledge and claim ignorance? To my personal thought on the matter. Should they be able to sue the manufacturer? Sure. Should the manufacturer be liable? Sure if they had to the technology and the technology was widely accepted by the industry. (since I am not an expert in building PWC’s nor was I back in 2001 when the craft they were ridding was manufactured, I cannot answer these questions). The jury was quoted “their verdict wasn't based on emotion. They said Yamaha had years to figure out a way to make sure operators could steer WaveRunners when the throttle was released. They didn't do so until 2003.” I don’t know if I agree with this notion that the “Should have” figured out how to make a water craft turn powerless sooner. There are other factures such as industry standards and cost to produce. Yes the part might be as one was paraphrased as saying only 5 dollars, but there is R&D cost, not to mention design cost for something that wasn’t widely acceptable practice when the craft was produced. The only thing I would throw into this is…. It is impossible to make products 100% safe. With over 310 million people in the US alone, someone will find a way to us a product in a way the manufacturer never intended their product to be used. This is why there are warnings and labels on most everything you touch these days. And at some point people need to take responsibility for their actions. I would ask why were these girls going so fast in heavy traffic close enough to a boat where they were put in this situation?

[TenTwentyOne]

Wait.... Have I missed something? What is this fix that Yamaha knows about that would allow steering to occur at high to medium speeds without throttle?

You didnt miss anything..... it doesnt exist.

[jkendallmsce]

Wow interesting thread…

The question of liability from the manufacturer would be, did Yamaha knowingly release a product that is unsafe? Did they try to cover up this knowledge and claim ignorance? To my personal thought on the matter. Should they be able to sue the manufacturer? Sure. Should the manufacturer be liable? Sure if they had to the technology and the technology was widely accepted by the industry. (since I am not an expert in building PWC’s nor was I back in 2001 when the craft they were ridding was manufactured, I cannot answer these questions). The jury was quoted “their verdict wasn't based on emotion. They said Yamaha had years to figure out a way to make sure operators could steer WaveRunners when the throttle was released. They didn't do so until 2003.” I don’t know if I agree with this notion that the “Should have” figured out how to make a water craft turn powerless sooner. There are other factures such as industry standards and cost to produce. Yes the part might be as one was paraphrased as saying only 5 dollars, but there is R&D cost, not to mention design cost for something that wasn’t widely acceptable practice when the craft was produced. The only thing I would throw into this is…. It is impossible to make products 100% safe. With over 310 million people in the US alone, someone will find a way to us a product in a way the manufacturer never intended their product to be used. This is why there are warnings and labels on most everything you touch these days. And at some point people need to take responsibility for their actions. I would ask why were these girls going so fast in heavy traffic close enough to a boat where they were put in this situation?

The girls were going fast, cause that is what the PWC does, and they are not thinking about stopping, only going fast. Had the PWC been able to go faster, they would have been going faster. and again NOT thinking about stopping. Stopping was not in their vocabulary. Nor were they instructed by ANYONE on how to stop.