Batchelder vs. Malibu case SEC filing

[85 Barefoot]

2 hours ago, UWSkier said:

I respect your opinion and know you've been around these boats a lot, but comparing a 197 to RLX is not apples to apples.  Every 197 I've been in has a flip up seat that blocks the bow walkway.  This acts as a dam for the water.  As would the aux observer seats that were so popular in the RLXi.  The Response LX does not have this issue.  The only thing that could block water flowing back would be if the observer seat area was jam packed with impenetrable surfaces.  It's not completely wide open, but it's not a scoop either.  There's plenty of relief here.

I just so happen to have my RLX sitting outside airing out this morning.  I keep the front seat out of my boat so you can clearly see the relief.  I also get the irony of the weight bag... lol

 

OK, I can't resist...lol.  last post, regardless of what UW says in response to my request below.

Uw, do us a favor, take a picture of the OTHER side...There is a bulkhead wall underneath the passenger seat and for the driver's footwell.  When those photos are also considered, the photos above don't negate what I was previously saying, that the water has nowhere to go (quickly).  It cannot move to the stern through a driver input to get the bow up, and it would actually make a bad situation worse if a driver tried.  And I'm not sure why the 197 comparison.  I've re-read my posts and the only time I've used it as a comparison was to acknowledge that, like a Response LXI, it too can be dipped and submarined.  But for what its worth, I do think its different because the of the volume of the bow taken up by cushioning, like the Response LXi.  To be sure, I think a Response LXi is MORE prone to dipping the bow significantly.  But I also think (know from my experience) that the water will move to the stern far more quickly.

And I too respect your experience UW.  Known you a long time on here.  I've been accused of twisting your words.  Had no intention of doing so (especially to someone I've interacted with on here for years prior to most in this thread every owning a Malibu), but I also don't think I did.  I thought you were pretty clear that you would not do more than idle with 200#s in your bow.  If that's the case, I'd appreciate your confirmation both for myself, as well as people in this thread that you said what you meant (with which I completely agree by the way).  

Edited September 15, 2021 by 85 Barefoot

[justgary]

@85 Barefoot- Just FYI, the boat I was talking about has a stepover, not a walkthrough.  If that makes it an LX, great.  I may have mistaken it for an LXi because it has a full-width ski locker in the back.  As a stepover, it definitely is similar to the boat in the case.

[Sparky450]

Even as a young child, floating in a blow up raft, I learned that putting all weight in the front would capsize the boat. 

Didn't we all do that to siblings?

I don't need someone to tell me it is not safe. Or that a propeller spinning at even 700 RPM is not safe.

This is the problem with this case. No accountability for the driver, who ultimately caused the problem.

[amartin]

6 hours ago, 85 Barefoot said:

"Millions of possibilities"?  Maybe there are, but using the BOW of a BOWRIDER is "possibility" #1.   It's obviously the reason they even created the model. 

As UW, a self-described "expert" already said, there is "no way" he would put 200#s in the bow of his Response LX.  Malibu didn't get "penalized for not thinking through the millions of possibilities for injuries".  They got popped because it is ludicrous to design and produce something, it get used precisely as intended, but not tell people (not all of whom are experts) that using it precisely as intended is actually quite dangerous.  Has they done that, Batchelder is almost certainly alive and Malibu would have no verdict to deal with.

85 - This is the statement that I was referring to about twisting words (bold added by me).  I didn't mean it as an accusation, but an observation.  Maybe that is semantics, but I see it differently.  I believe that his intent, as you referred to in your latest post, was that he would only do so under very controlled conditions.

Again, not picking on you, just observing that you remind me of a litigator, which you still have not denied . (But I can certainly understand not wanting to admit to it!)

[Sparky450]

To everyone with bicyles or motorcyles.

Does your bike have a sticker saying "If you pull the front break too hard, you may flip, causing injury or death" Or a sticker on the sprocket saying "Dont put your finger in here or it might get cut off"

Heck, while we are at it, "Dont reach under the vacuum cleaner"!!!

IMO this is insanity!!

[UWSkier]

I'm away until this eve but can grab photos if I get time later.  My point wasn't that the RLX is a full pass-through either, but it's every bit as good as a 197 which has a latching seat that blocks the walk-through.  RLXi, TXi, etc have popular "filler" seats from the factory.  The problem isn't WORSE on an RLX is my point.

I've taken water over the bow (I wasn't driving) of my RLX and have never had it pool there.  I've also taken water over the bow of my dad's 2001 Sunsetter VLX with the air dam in and seen water pool up behind that (I was driving and it was when I learned how to not do that).

Edited September 15, 2021 by UWSkier

[Sparky450]

3 minutes ago, UWSkier said:

I've also taken water over the bow of my dad's 2001 Sunsetter VLX with the air dam in and seen water pool up behind that (I was driving and it was when I learned how to not do that).

And a boat operator with 40 years driving experience, that lives on a lake should know that as well.

That is what they claim about the driver, correct?

And BTW I hate all the bells and crap on my truck. I turn as many as I can off. When I turn them off, I tend to be more diligent about my surroundings.

And dont even get me started on all of these fancy screens in the new vehicles.

IMO they are worse than a phone.

[platon20]

Over the past several decades, lawyers have convinced the American public that when something bad happens, it's ALWAYS somebody's fault.

And the lawyers have gone further in convincing the American public that all bad incidents are not just somebody's fault, the entity with the MOST MONEY is the most at fault.

Consider this -- in this Malibu case the jury found that the uncle/driver of the boat was partially at fault.  How much in damages was rendered against the driver?  Zero.  I would ask somebody to explain that to me, but I don't need an explanation because it's easy to see why.  The driver doesn't have any money.

If the driver was Bill Gates instead of Uncle Bob the jury would have rendered millions in damages against him.

 

 

[Sparky450]

21 hours ago, platon20 said:

Over the past several decades, lawyers have convinced the American public that when something bad happens, it's ALWAYS somebody's fault.

And the lawyers have gone further in convincing the American public that all bad incidents are not just somebody's fault, the entity with the MOST MONEY is the most at fault.

Consider this -- in this Malibu case the jury found that the uncle/driver of the boat was partially at fault.  How much in damages was rendered against the driver?  Zero.  I would ask somebody to explain that to me, but I don't need an explanation because it's easy to see why.  The driver doesn't have any money.

If the driver was Bill Gates instead of Uncle Bob the jury would have rendered millions in damages against him.

 

 

ICBW But the attorneys seem to always know how much they can get out of somebody, without said person saying “Heck with it. I will file bankrupt”