Prop Guards?
12-06-2002 | 06:56 AM
#1
Thread Starter
CBPBA's Walmart Greeter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 895
Likes: 14
From: Pasadena, MD
Prop Guards?
Thought you all might find this interesting reading. Submitted by one of our politically active members, thanks for the info Dan J. Similar to the lady who sued because the coffee was too hot, unbelievable.
Prop Guard Case Ruling Opens Door
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted 12/4/02 at 10:27:AM
The Supreme Court decision in Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine may require boat manufacturers to satisfy different safety standards for recreational vessels and associated equipment in all 50 states, rather than the one set of federal safety standards they currently meet. In the Sprietsma case, Mrs. Sprietsma accidentally fell overboard after the boat in which she was riding turned, and was struck by the propeller, suffering fatal injuries. Mr. Sprietsma claimed that the Mercury Marine outboard motor was unreasonably dangerous because it did not include a propeller guard. The Coast Guard has concluded that, to date, the evidence is unclear regarding the possible benefits and inherent dangers of propeller guards, and has not mandated propeller guards on recreational boats.
In overturning the decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court and two lower courts, the Court ruled that the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, which maintains consistent, national safety standards (as set by the US Coast Guard), does not preempt state tort law. "We're disappointed with the ruling," said Monita Fontaine, NMMA Vice President of Government Relations. "We believe there is clear and necessary federal preemption of boating safety regulations by the Coast Guard, as the lower courts found. I fear this may lead to a patchwork of inconsistent regulations in multiple jurisdictions, with safety standards being set by juries rather than safety experts."
"The Coast Guard is charged by Congress to set uniform standards that protect boaters," said Fontaine, "and boat manufacturers rely on those standards in their manufacturing processes. In this case, the Coast Guard set an implied standard by determining there was insufficient safety evidence to justify promulgating a regulation regarding propeller guards." The Court did not find Brunswick Corporation, parent company of the defendant, Mercury Marine, to be liable for the incident that led to this case; this ruling allows the case to move forward in the Illinois state court. The Court also did not comment on the appropriateness of propeller guards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted 12/4/02 at 10:27:AM
The Supreme Court decision in Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine may require boat manufacturers to satisfy different safety standards for recreational vessels and associated equipment in all 50 states, rather than the one set of federal safety standards they currently meet. In the Sprietsma case, Mrs. Sprietsma accidentally fell overboard after the boat in which she was riding turned, and was struck by the propeller, suffering fatal injuries. Mr. Sprietsma claimed that the Mercury Marine outboard motor was unreasonably dangerous because it did not include a propeller guard. The Coast Guard has concluded that, to date, the evidence is unclear regarding the possible benefits and inherent dangers of propeller guards, and has not mandated propeller guards on recreational boats.
In overturning the decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court and two lower courts, the Court ruled that the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, which maintains consistent, national safety standards (as set by the US Coast Guard), does not preempt state tort law. "We're disappointed with the ruling," said Monita Fontaine, NMMA Vice President of Government Relations. "We believe there is clear and necessary federal preemption of boating safety regulations by the Coast Guard, as the lower courts found. I fear this may lead to a patchwork of inconsistent regulations in multiple jurisdictions, with safety standards being set by juries rather than safety experts."
"The Coast Guard is charged by Congress to set uniform standards that protect boaters," said Fontaine, "and boat manufacturers rely on those standards in their manufacturing processes. In this case, the Coast Guard set an implied standard by determining there was insufficient safety evidence to justify promulgating a regulation regarding propeller guards." The Court did not find Brunswick Corporation, parent company of the defendant, Mercury Marine, to be liable for the incident that led to this case; this ruling allows the case to move forward in the Illinois state court. The Court also did not comment on the appropriateness of propeller guards.
__________________
K2
-----------------------------------------
CHESAPEAKE BAY POWER BOAT ASSOCIATION
'http://www.cbpba.com'
"Experience is something you don't have until just after you need it."
K2
-----------------------------------------
CHESAPEAKE BAY POWER BOAT ASSOCIATION
'http://www.cbpba.com'
"Experience is something you don't have until just after you need it."
Last edited by Keith; 12-07-2002 at 03:38 PM.
12-06-2002 | 07:42 AM
#2
Platinum Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 21,346
Likes: 10
Thanks for the text. I've read about this before in Boat-U.S. but forgot all about it.
I agree that it's complete idiocy and a self-serving crime to frivolously persue this by the wife. There is no one to blame here except those on board the boat.
Are we to begin suing car manufacturers now for not providing pedestrian-collision avoidance systems??? NO!
These people are so stupid. This is no basis to require prop guards.
I agree that it's complete idiocy and a self-serving crime to frivolously persue this by the wife. There is no one to blame here except those on board the boat.
Are we to begin suing car manufacturers now for not providing pedestrian-collision avoidance systems??? NO!
These people are so stupid. This is no basis to require prop guards.
12-06-2002 | 08:05 AM
#3
Charter Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,213
Likes: 395
From: Merritt Is. Fl. USA
BD,
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that Prop guards won't be in our FUTURE! Another reason to keep our old boats, because I don't think that they could make prop guards retro-active, although I could be wrong!
TGIF,
MD
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that Prop guards won't be in our FUTURE! Another reason to keep our old boats, because I don't think that they could make prop guards retro-active, although I could be wrong!
TGIF,
MD
12-06-2002 | 08:46 AM
#5
Were doomed!
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,092
Likes: 1,386
From: Chicago, IL
Another fine example of why we need some sort of review board before these stupid cases even hit the courts! There should be a group of 5 people...all with bats.......you get the idea? 
There should be a group of 5 people...all with bats.......you get the idea?
__________________
-Wally
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy horsepower. And I've never seen a sad person hauling a$$!
-Wally
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy horsepower. And I've never seen a sad person hauling a$$!
12-06-2002 | 09:52 AM
#6
Platinum Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,562
Likes: 0
From: so. WI
People have been walking into aircraft propellers for as long as they have been around too.......I'm sure a prop guard would work just fine there too!
This is going to work about as well as the catalytic converter idea.
This is going to work about as well as the catalytic converter idea.
12-06-2002 | 09:55 AM
#7
Registered
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
From: Lake St. Clair
I don't think this was a good thing that happened. However, you can only protect people from so much. Accidents DO happen.
It's just like the car market..........airbags here, airbags there, airbags everywhere.
Hell if all this crap does go through, eventually, every time we leave the house, we're gonna have to getin a big inflatable sumo suit so we can't get hurt !
Where does it end ?
They weren't specific on how it happened...........for all we know, it could have been a 12 ft aluminum boat with an outboard somewhere they shouldn't have been, like out in 5 footers ? !
Not trying to be a jerk..............just kinda fed up hearing about all of the "crap" going on !
It's just like the car market..........airbags here, airbags there, airbags everywhere.
Hell if all this crap does go through, eventually, every time we leave the house, we're gonna have to getin a big inflatable sumo suit so we can't get hurt !
Where does it end ?
They weren't specific on how it happened...........for all we know, it could have been a 12 ft aluminum boat with an outboard somewhere they shouldn't have been, like out in 5 footers ? !
Not trying to be a jerk..............just kinda fed up hearing about all of the "crap" going on !
12-06-2002 | 10:33 AM
#8
Registered
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: Dayton,OH/LakeCumberland,KY
That is the ridicules direction his country is going with the attitude that it is always someone else’s fault for every bad thing that happens.
I am involved in a case with an employee that was informed and reprimanded for wearing gloves in the work place with roatig parts because she did not want to ruine her manicure and got her finger cut. Guess whose fault it is! Awars because according to OSHA rules we should have dismissed her sooner by the way she ad only worked 1 week and the reprimand was only one hour before.
I am involved in a case with an employee that was informed and reprimanded for wearing gloves in the work place with roatig parts because she did not want to ruine her manicure and got her finger cut. Guess whose fault it is! Awars because according to OSHA rules we should have dismissed her sooner by the way she ad only worked 1 week and the reprimand was only one hour before.
12-06-2002 | 08:20 PM
#10
Charter Member#157
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 3
From: Minneapolis, Mn, Usa
just think about it.
first prop guards
then rear tire guards
jsut think if some one would to be ran over by acar tire you would need to install guards. I mean they want them for props, why not tires. same principle. the wheel that drives the vehicle caused a fatality.
Give us a friggen break!
first prop guards
then rear tire guards
jsut think if some one would to be ran over by acar tire you would need to install guards. I mean they want them for props, why not tires. same principle. the wheel that drives the vehicle caused a fatality.
Give us a friggen break!
__________________
This Cat is trying to keep up with the Big Dogs
This Cat is trying to keep up with the Big Dogs
