Why are boats and motors expensive?? Because of things like this

[Outraged]

I have cut and pasted some key points of this article, I have also provided a link if you wish to read the whole thing. This is what is wrong with our country and legal system, and one reason boats, motors and all sorts of other products continue to skyrocket in cost.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/jurors-find-boat-manufacturer-partly-liable-527456.html

A federal jury Monday found a boat manufacturer partially liable for a 2005 incident on Lake Austin in which a teen's leg was severed by a propeller. Jurors ordered the company to pay $3.8 million in medical expenses and damages.

After deliberating for about seven hours, jurors found that the Brunswick Corp. shared more than half of the blame for the accident that severely injured Jacob Brochtrup, who was then 18.

Brunswick officials said in a statement after the verdict that they "stand behind our products, which are used safely and properly by boaters around the world."

Jurors found that Brochtrup also was responsible, as was the driver of the boat.

He had been celebrating the July Fourth weekend wakeboarding with three friends at Emma Long Metropolitan Park when the accident happened. Brochtrup had just finished his turn on the wakeboard when a tow rope popped off the back of the white Sea Ray ski boat.

Brochtrup jumped out of the boat to grab the line. Unaware that Brochtrup was in the water behind him, 18-year-old driver Patrick Houston put his family's boat in reverse.

The propeller caught the top of Brochtrup's right leg and twisted it around, chopping deep into flesh, muscle and bone.

According to the suit, the manufacturer of the boat and motor did not have safety devices, including guards or covers, to prevent Brochtrup from becoming entangled or stuck.

[cc-rider]

Unbelieveable...what was that jury thinking?

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

Blame the jury, yes. But also blame the scum bag lawyers for bringing the law suit. I'd be curious what "cover" or "guards" they propose you put on a boat/motor. From what I read, this is nothing more than a tragic accident due to miscommunication.

[brentfrank]

Gee, I wonder if I can get some money for getting splashed in 6 foot rollers?

[StHubert]

Typically Attorneys will get around 30% of the judgment as a fee.

[yarcraft91]

Makes about as much sense as suing GM because their trucks are heavy and hurt people who get run over by them.

Texas seems to be home to a lot of questionable product liability law suits. I doubt that's coincidental.

[cast_and_blast]

Blame the jury, yes. But also blame the scum bag lawyers for bringing the law suit.

Whoa. Attorneys don't "bring" lawsuits, plaintiffs do. In this case, it's the injured party.

This is not the attorney's fault. They are bound by law (punishment = disbarment and possible prosecution) to follow the laws and regulations set down by the state and federal goverenments, as is the judge. The jury is also instructed to follow these same laws and regulations as they deliberate. If they do not do so, the judge has the authority to not accept their ruling. Both the defendant and the plaintiff has the ability to challenge that ruling as well - appeals, mistrials, etc.

The attorneys are playing by the rules (laws and regs) as set down before them. If the result is not one that is liked by the citizens of a state or the citizens of the US then it is up to them to lobby their representatives to have the laws amended. Constitution of the United States - ring a bell?

Do I agree with the outcome based only on the short facts presented here? Nope. But I will not judge that until I have a case to read - there is probably more to it than is presented in a 1 paragraph synopsis.

Folks LOVE to blame the attorneys, until they need one. Funny, the tune changes at that point...

And no, I'm not an attorney.

Scott

[undguy]

I agree with cast_and_blast. Unless you watched the whole trial or at least read the whole transcript, you have very little knowledge of what facts the jury based their decision. Keep in mind also that BOTH sides have a lawyer, not just the plaintiffs. Both sides also have expert witnesses and whatever other evidence to support their arguments. Jurors are not a bunch of idiots that are fooled by "scumbag" lawyers (is it just the plaintiff's lawyers that are scumbags, or both sides?). Jurors are a cross section of the community just like all of you here. Just like the famous McDonald's coffee case, the facts of which are usually grossly misstated, there is likely a lot more to this case than what is summarized above.

[cast_and_blast]

Thanks for the backup UNDguy - I actually feel better about the Sioux taking out the Gophers now... ;)

Scott

[REW]

My pet peeve with this country and todays society.
Where is a persons responsibility.

If this were the 1800's and a person was run over by a stage coach, the fellow driving the coach would say: I didn't see you, let me help get you to the doctorl. Good by.

Everyone would go on about their business and would deal with the issue.

When a person does dangerous things, he has to be responsible for things that might happen to him.

If a person goes sky diving and the parachute fails to open and he is killed, is the manufacturer of the air plane propellor responsible for the accident? Of course not.

There is no way that Mercury Motor Corp, or its parent company Brusnwick be responsible for the accidental action of a person using one of thier products correctly - albiet not carefully.

Take care
REW

[doubleheader]

REW, I couldn't agree more. In my generation if you got whacked in school, came home and told Mom and Dad, you were likley to get whacked at home too. We were taught, life's not always fair, deal with it. Today parents teach their kids, "it's not your fault", our politicians get elected on the, "it's not your fault and we'll take the other guy's money and give it to you" platform. I just don't get it. This attitude is cripplling.

[Knot Tellin]

It boils down to personal responsibility. We need to teach our children that they are responsible for their own actions. And that those actions affect others. Our government does the same thing by trying to regulate stupidity.
It’s one thing if it is gross negligent on the part of the manufacture, but in too many cases it is just someone trying to make people feel sorry for their misfortune so they can get some easy cash!
Now mercury will not only have to have another disclaimer in their manual. That I am guessing the person never read, but a sticker on the motor saying don’t stick you leg in the prop while the motor while running.
YCFS You can’t Fix Stupid.

[undguy]

My pet peeve with this country and todays society.
Where is a persons responsibility.

If this were the 1800's and a person was run over by a stage coach, the fellow driving the coach would say: I didn't see you, let me help get you to the doctorl. Good by.

Everyone would go on about their business and would deal with the issue.

When a person does dangerous things, he has to be responsible for things that might happen to him.

If a person goes sky diving and the parachute fails to open and he is killed, is the manufacturer of the air plane propellor responsible for the accident? Of course not.

There is no way that Mercury Motor Corp, or its parent company Brusnwick be responsible for the accidental action of a person using one of thier products correctly - albiet not carefully.

Take care
REW

REW

I respect your opinion and have used your advice on several issues. I agree with everything you state except for the last sentence. In order to prevail in this suit as against Mercury, the plaintiff had to show negligence on the part of Mercury and that the negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Trials are not just one side presenting evidence to a jury. Presumably Mercury was able to hire a pretty good lawyer to argue its case. I get tired of this argument that the plaintiff's "scumbag" lawyers are so good compared to the defendant's that they just bamboozle these dumb old hick jurors. I was not at the trial nor was (I assume) anyone else posting here. Unless you were, you cannot say Mercury got the shaft here.

[ejj]

Hard to say who got that shaft unless you were there. Usually the courts do OK--it's not an easy task, and something that doesn't get much time in many places of the world. Perhaps they will appeal.

[SkarMN75RBLS]

It's a spinning propeller......
That's like suing Chevrolet because you were hit by one of their cars.
Makes no sense.
Everyone these days is looking for a handout. It's unfortunate that this happened, but it was a complete accident and in no way Mercury's fault.

[Robert M]

Thats what you get when you have too many Lawyers and polititions (wich used to be lawyers) in this country.Sueing and getting paid for something because you are stupid is just wrong and the consumer or tax payers are paying for it.Not to mention class action law suits where the lawyers get millions and the people get next to nothing.

[Gilligan]

My grampa, drunk as a skunk slipped under the wheel of a passing coal truck and was killed in 1946, guess we would be rich if that happened today. :stick:

[undguy]

Lawyers wrote the Constitution when doctors were treating George Washington with leeches. I know pointing out facts will never beat out invective, so you all have a great day.

[Juls]

Prop accidents are exactly why the motors can no longer start in reverse or forward like they did in the early years of outboard motors. They can only start in neutral.

My Dad was the manager of product safety for OMC, and worked closely with the lawyers for the company....these lawsuits have been going on forever. You just don't always hear about them.

Juls

[T Mac]

My pet peeve with this country and todays society.
Where is a persons responsibility.

If this were the 1800's and a person was run over by a stage coach, the fellow driving the coach would say: I didn't see you, let me help get you to the doctorl. Good by.

Everyone would go on about their business and would deal with the issue.

When a person does dangerous things, he has to be responsible for things that might happen to him.

If a person goes sky diving and the parachute fails to open and he is killed, is the manufacturer of the air plane propellor responsible for the accident? Of course not.

There is no way that Mercury Motor Corp, or its parent company Brusnwick be responsible for the accidental action of a person using one of thier products correctly - albiet not carefully.

Take care
REW


Exactly.

[undguy]

My pet peeve with this country and todays society.
Where is a persons responsibility.

If this were the 1800's and a person was run over by a stage coach, the fellow driving the coach would say: I didn't see you, let me help get you to the doctorl. Good by.

Everyone would go on about their business and would deal with the issue.

When a person does dangerous things, he has to be responsible for things that might happen to him.

If a person goes sky diving and the parachute fails to open and he is killed, is the manufacturer of the air plane propellor responsible for the accident? Of course not.

There is no way that Mercury Motor Corp, or its parent company Brusnwick be responsible for the accidental action of a person using one of thier products correctly - albiet not carefully.

Take care
REW

I know I should quit, but I can't help it. To twist your comment a little, when a person (or company) does dangerous things and hurts someone else, he has to be responsible to the person he hurts. So if it were the fault of the stage coach driver, shouldn't he pay for the doctor bills?

If this were the 1970s Ford would be making the Pinto "Blazer" and saving a few bucks on safety, resulting in the gas tanks exploding on impact until lawyers stepped in on behalf of the injured and put a stop to it. Ford didn't do it on their own, and internal documents produced through the lawsuit proved they decided it was an acceptable risk to continue to save a couple bucks rather than modify the design. There are many other examples of "everyone going about their business" and people getting hurt until lawsuits were filed. I would bet that Juls example of changes to outboards were because of lawsuits, not because manufacturers decided on their own the product was not safe and could be made safe at little or no cost. Having said all that, maybe Mercury got a bad verdict in this case. If so, the trial judge or an appellate court will most likely fix the jury's mistake.

By the way, I am weighing in so much on this subject because I have been a trial court judge for the last 15 years. I was a county prosecutor for 15 years before that and didn't do civil work, so I really don't have a dog in the trial lawyer/defense attorney fight. I have prosecuted or presided over hundreds of civil and criminal jury trials and 95% of the time they get it right. Maybe they were wrong in this case, but to blame the cost of boats and motors on lawsuits is just plain ignorant.

[dtmg]

:deadhorse:Don't usually comment on issues like this, you may have been all of those legal eagle things, and you would know that all it takes is to get some sympathy for the victim, especially against a big company and the issue is over right, or wrong, my wife works with a injury lawyer, my nephew is a lawyer and my oldest son who is a Dr. his best friend is a lawyer in Chicago and all say the same not a matter of fault but of sympathy for the victim, no matter how dump the act was to get into the problem. Also helps going against a big corp.

[Robert M]

And the Lawyers got paid very well and the people got a worthless certificate for a few bucks off of a new vehicle.

[edgenterprises]

That is stupid. In regards to the lawyers. There are always the ambulance chasers, the ones that you see advertising on the noon news. Saying if you've been injured give us a call.

And it will affect the cost of products. Is it the only affect no, but those costs that incurred in lawsuits resulting in profit losses have to passed on to someone. Companies can't take losses and stay in business. Lord knows the share holders don't want to see the losses. The sad part to this whole deal is that stuff like this runs companies out of business.

This is no different than gun lawsuits or drunk driving lawsuits. If a guy got drunk on Jack Daniels and jumped into his Chevy and kills someone, is Chevy at fault, is the Jack Daniels Distillery at fault. Heck No. If a criminal kills someone with a Glock shooting Winchester ammo, is it Glock's fault or Winchester's fault. No again.

The prop did exactly what it was supposed to do, cut stuff. The guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We have probably all been there at one time or another and either just skated by or maybe we got injured. Either way we probably learned a valuable life lesson.

[undguy]

And the Lawyers got paid very well and the people got a worthless certificate for a few bucks off of a new vehicle.

A. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company
In May 1972, Lily Gray was traveling with thirteen year old Richard Grimshaw in a 1972 Pinto when their car was struck by another car traveling approximately thirty miles per hour. The impact ignited a fire in the Pinto which killed Lily Gray and left Richard Grimshaw with devastating injuries. A judgment was rendered against Ford and the jury awarded the Gray family $560,000 and Matthew Grimshaw $2.5 million in compensatory damages. The surprise came when the jury awarded $125 million in punitive damages as well. This was subsequently reduced to $3.5 million.

1. Demonstrates what some may think is an unreasonable jury verdict is adjusted by the court. What is your son's life worth?

2 3.5 million, even if reduced by the lawyers percentage (10 to 30%), isn't exactly a certificate for a few bucks off a new vehicle.

Sidenote - it would have cost Ford $11 per car to fix, but they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided it was cheaper to pay off victims than do the fix. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[Catch'nRelease]

A. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company
In May 1972, Lily Gray was traveling with thirteen year old Richard Grimshaw in a 1972 Pinto when their car was struck by another car traveling approximately thirty miles per hour. The impact ignited a fire in the Pinto which killed Lily Gray and left Richard Grimshaw with devastating injuries. A judgment was rendered against Ford and the jury awarded the Gray family $560,000 and Matthew Grimshaw $2.5 million in compensatory damages. The surprise came when the jury awarded $125 million in punitive damages as well. This was subsequently reduced to $3.5 million.

1. Demonstrates what some may think is an unreasonable jury verdict is adjusted by the court. What is your son's life worth?

2 3.5 million, even if reduced by the lawyers percentage (10 to 30%), isn't exactly a certificate for a few bucks off a new vehicle.

Sidenote - it would have cost Ford $11 per car to fix, but they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided it was cheaper to pay off victims than do the fix. Look it up if you don't believe me.

undguy, with all due respect I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. The Pinto was clearly defective, even compared to other vehicles of that vintage. But how does that compare with this outboard propeller case, which operates just like every other outboard propeller made since outboards were invented? Clearly this was operator error, and the jury was feeling sorry for the victim. As is typical today, they go after whoever has the deepest pockets and can afford to pay up.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, we all pay to help fund these frivolous lawsuits, because manufacturers absolutely need to build in the cost in the prices they charge, otherwise they would make no money and go out of business. Either they choose to buy very expensive product liability insurance, or they self insure and/or retain large retentions. Either way, they need to take these expenses into account when setting their prices, just like labor and the cost of raw materials.

Another example of there is no free lunch! The money has to come from somewhere, and in this case it comes from the consumer.

[Robert M]

I guess I just dont like lawyers and I dont like people getting a pile of money for nothing.Thats why we now have to put a disclaimer on everything like a coffee cup because some people dont know you can get burned by hot coffee.

[Hawgeye]

Cast n blast and UND guy.

You guys are kidding right!? How much involvement have you had with lawyers? Or...maybe you are lawyers.

No offense but the job of an attorney is to look for "loopholes", "angles" and "opportunities" to win the lawsuit. A plaintiff may come to an attorney looking for "options" and the attorney will look for ways to help cover the cost of the damage as well as protect the plaintiff. Ultimately to "MAKE MONEY"! The plaintiff initially has little in mind to go after a company without the direct involvement of an attorney.

Beleive me, I am very well versed in litigation. I am a manager of a Corporate company that frequently gets listed in lawsuits. I even had to deal with a lawsuit where my company and product that we sell wasn't even on the premise and was gone after for "damages" because my employee identified a competitors product as faulty and in need of replacement!! Proposed a replacement solution and in the meantime, the "faulty" product "malfunctioned" causing property damage and loss of revenue!

We did win the lawsuit but it cost several thousands of dollars to fight it.

You are kidding, right?

[doubleheader]

I read this post yesterday and giving Undguy the benefit of the doubt strained my brain (not too tough) to figure out any scenario wherein the manufacturer of the outboard should be accountable. So the only remote thing I could come up with would be if the ignition was off and somehow started and engaged in gear by itself, but could that even happen?, and if it did, would that be grounds to sue? I don't know. Here's what I do know. The legal system is broken. I was sued once, fraudulantly I might add, but it took me a year's worth of mental anquish and $10,000 in legal fees to clear my name. The company I work for was sued 4 years ago. We spent nearly $200,000 in legal fees before a federal judge dismissed the case just recently. We're out the money, and who knows if the court will grant our request for reimbursement, even though we have proven that the plainteff purposely withheld evidence. And by the way, what has the plaintiff done? He has now sued us in state court, requesting of course, a jury trial. Why do you think he wants a jury trial? Look, getting back to pure economics, can you imagine a Chinese court awarding money in the boating mishap, how about even the Pinto explosion? We are fast becoming irrelevent worldwide in terms of manufacturing, and these lawsuits are partly to blame.

[cast_and_blast]

Cast n blast and UND guy.
You guys are kidding right!?


Speaking for myself, no, I'm not kidding. I believe in the Constitution and the provisions it sets forth - the legal system being one that is at it's core. As I've stated already, I defer any judgement as to whether it has merit or not as I have not read the case (I would bet that most if not all that are posting here have not either). The courts has made their decision (after two hung juries leading to two mistrials) and now it can either be finalized or appealed. If I were betting, I would bet on the appeal.


How much involvement have you had with lawyers? Or...maybe you are lawyers.


I've had lots of involvement with attorneys. However, as I cleary stated in my previous post, I am not an attorney.


No offense but the job of an attorney is to look for "loopholes", "angles" and "opportunities" to win the lawsuit. A plaintiff may come to an attorney looking for "options" and the attorney will look for ways to help cover the cost of the damage as well as protect the plaintiff. Ultimately to "MAKE MONEY"! The plaintiff initially has little in mind to go after a company without the direct involvement of an attorney.


The job of an attorney can vary - not all attorney are litigators. The litigating attorneys are compensated to represent their clients. In some cases (DWI for instance) this can be a flat fee. In some cases it is a percentage and some cases are "pro bono" - that means free.

If the plaintiff has "little mind to go after a company", then why would they be visiting an attorney? The laws and processes of the legal system can be complex - the plaintiff (or defendant) is engaging the help of an attorney to help navigate that process effectively. Again, this goes to the representation of the client - it's their job and there are consequences if they do not do it correctly.


Beleive me, I am very well versed in litigation. I am a manager of a Corporate company that frequently gets listed in lawsuits. I even had to deal with a lawsuit where my company and product that we sell wasn't even on the premise and was gone after for "damages" because my employee identified a competitors product as faulty and in need of replacement!! Proposed a replacement solution and in the meantime, the "faulty" product "malfunctioned" causing property damage and loss of revenue!


Sounds like you are well versed in being listed on lawsuits and perhaps providing information to help defend the lawsuit, but unless you are the corporate attorney I would venture to say that you are in no way well versed in litigation. It also sounds like you are coming at the issue with a very firm position based on your negative experience at your company. So, taking that negative viewpoint, it seems that you are now applying it to the entire legal system in response to a news article from a newspaper in Texas and some postings on a public forum based on fishing. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Have you read the case to know and understand the facts before taking this position?


You are kidding, right?

Nope, still not kidding. Do I like all parts of the legal system? No. But I also have faith in the process as a whole - not that it is always perfect - but as a whole.

Good luck.

Scott

[cast_and_blast]

We are fast becoming irrelevent worldwide in terms of manufacturing, and these lawsuits are partly to blame.

I would argue that we are fast becoming irrelevant worldwide in terms of manufacturing because there are many other places in the world that will do the manufacturing for much less money than we will in the US. Look no further than Detroit for proof.

Scott

[Binks61]

" Jurors are not a bunch of idiots that are fooled by "scumbag" lawyers"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.......AHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAH.............AHHAHAHAH

[lund rebel]

As customers we will pay for this down the road, there is already warning stickers on the boats warning about turning props and to stay away from the stern when engine is running, the thing of it is, that no matter what kind of warnings there is, what kind safety devices you have, you are going to have accidents and the following law suites and the reason is, YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID,JUST PAY FOR IT.

[cast_and_blast]

" Jurors are not a bunch of idiots that are fooled by "scumbag" lawyers"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.......AHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAH.............AHHAHAHAH

Binks -

Are you a registed voter? Yes? You're in the jury pool that you just called idiots... :rolleyes:

Scott

[ejj]

Anyone know the facts in the case? Anyone know what the argument was against Brunswick? I'd like to know the facts.

The Pinto is a perfect example of why we should have huge settlements against companies. Ford decided that it was cheaper to pay-off families of the deceased versus fix the vehicles. The jury punished them for this--corporations only understand money.

I'd like to the how/why Sea Ray / Merc was involved. If people can/could do something stupid and successfully win a jury case with no merit, there would be a lot more boating cases. People do lots of dumb things in boats.

[Robert M]

Probably not a good example compareing a faulty car to an idiot driving a boat.I dont know the facts and really dont care.Im sure some day Ill have to have a big cage around my prop and have stickers on the boat saying dont throw matches in the gas tank etc.

[yarcraft91]

Anyone know the facts in the case? Anyone know what the argument was against Brunswick? I'd like to know the facts.

The Pinto is a perfect example of why we should have huge settlements against companies. Ford decided that it was cheaper to pay-off families of the deceased versus fix the vehicles. The jury punished them for this--corporations only understand money.

I'd like to the how/why Sea Ray / Merc was involved. If people can/could do something stupid and successfully win a jury case with no merit, there would be a lot more boating cases. People do lots of dumb things in boats.

OK- I'll probably regret jumping into this.

Yes, the Pinto is a good example of how lawsuits serve a valuable purpose.

The Dow Corning breast implant lawsuit is a good example of people doing something stupid (IMHO), blaming their health problems on the breast implants, winning a judgement from a sympathetic jury and bankrupting a company that made a product the FDA now says is perfectly safe. That's an example of what's wrong with lawsuits.

Go to Wikipedia and read the story of Bendectin- it's an accurate account and another good example of what's wrong with the system. In that one, an "expert witness" falsified research data to make it look like a product was unsafe.

I've received judgements/settlements in 3 class action lawsuits that I never asked to join. All three were jokes for everybody but the lawyers who pocketed HUGE fees. My favorite is the "defective" Remington shotgun barrel settlement. I got $20 to replace my shotgun barrel (which really cost $200) and the lawyers got $35million. Another good example of what's wrong with the system.

[ejj]

The system is not perfect. But it's not bad, when you look at some of the alternatives. (Kinda like our country in general) I'm not saying that all tort law is the equivalent of the Pinto case. Innocent guys have been executed, etc. Lots of imperfection.

I just want to know the basis of the case. No one seems to know. (So they speculate.)

[yarcraft91]

ejj:

I agree- we do not know the basis of the Mercury case. It appears that it's possible to retrieve some of the trial documents here.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txwdce/case_no-1:2007cv00643/case_id-252199/

[Outraged]

I am the one who posted the original article and link. I have not seen a legal brief on the case to know the exact facts either of the attorneys based their arguments on. It would seem that it is a fairly (if that term can be used) straightforward product liability case. I really can't imagine a situation where there would be any additional information that would make me believe Brunswick (sea ray and mercruiser) had any more fault than what was indicated by the circumstances. This was a very tragic accident and I hate to over simplify, but the plaintiff jumped in the water behind a running boat and the driver backed over him. How much more to the story can there be? Unless the engine started un expectedly or the boat went in gear un aided by a person, I still have a hard time seeing negligence on the part of the manufacturer.

I work for a marine manufacturer, and have seen suits brought (and won) that were more frivlous than this. I believe in our legal system, but this kind of thing is a very slippery slope.

[doubleheader]

Well I reread your original post and even read another accounting of this case on another website, and, if both accounts are accurate in that Mercury is being held liable for not having a guard on the prop, then we are not only on a slippery slope we've fallen off a cliff. I also have to agree, if those accounts are accurate, what else is there to say?

[ozarkeyes]

Most everyone, when they see the news of "jury awards xxx million dollar judgment", never keep track of the final results after appeals. Many, many jury verdicts of large sums, are either reversed, or reduced on appeal. So until the defendants actually pay a final judgment after all appeals and possibly new trial even, nothing is set in stone. The results are perhaps another 2 years out.

[yarcraft91]

Another side of this whole thing- here's a website that tracks certain lawsuits related to people getting injured by boat propellors.

http://www.rbbi.com/pgic/pcases/pcases.htm

There are cases back to 1964- some interesting reading. Not sure what the agenda is...

[edgenterprises]

I cut my finger on my Buck hunting knife while field dressing a deer one time and my finger now goes numb sometimes.

I also hit my finger with a hammer one time and blew it apart. That finger too goes numb first in the winter and I cannot operate well with gloves in in the winter.

I also wiped out on roller skates one time when I was 12 and broke my arm. That arm is no where near as strong as my other arm. I can't lift as much with it as my other arm.

Heck, I even smashed my hand in a vice one time.

Maybe I am accident prone, maybe I am stupid, maybe I need to hire a lawyer and sue them all - Buck, Stanley, the roller skate people and Wilton.......