From Palmbeachpost.com:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/feeds/0831seadoo.html
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
"The makers of Sea-Doo watercraft dodged a multimillion-dollar verdict Wednesday thanks to one stubborn juror."
And hooray for that one 'stubborn' juror!
"The holdout forced a judge to declare a mistrial and send a Greenacres woman home with nothing more than memories of her 12-year-old daughter who was killed when she crashed a water scooter into a dock in the Intracoastal Waterway six years ago."
Ya think the writer's slightly biased?
OK, here's the deal:
Mommy left her little dearie with her boss' teenaged son while she went to check on some construction at one of her employer's properties. Teenaged son, who obviously wasn't thinking too horribly clearly, let her use a PWC, which she killed herself on when she hit a dock.
So, according to the lawyer hired by her mother, because her kid, under questionable supervision, got killed due to a LOT of stupid choices on the part of herself and a 17 year old kid, Bombardier should pay out FORTY-EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS, because there was no sticker saying people under 16 should not operate a PWC.
I went out and looked at my cars, folks. There's no sticker saying people under 16 shouldn't drive a car. Mainly because the law says so. Now, in WI, where I live, the law says nobody under the age of 16 may operate a PWC. Period. Bombardier is not responsible for knowing that. THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THE PWC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING THE RULES GOVERNING PWC USAGE IN THEIR STATE.
But hey, Bombardier's got a ton of bucks, let's sue THEM instead. What a load of crap.
The cost of defending this lawsuit is eventually paid by all people who use Bombardier products, by the addition of the cost to the price tag. Same with any other product you buy. My memory is shaky on this, but I thought I read once that General Motors estimated that the costs of defending themselves in lawsuits added about $1000 per vehicle sold. I may be wrong, however.
So, the judge declared a mistrial because, quote, "one juror was adamant that the company not be held responsible, so there was no way to reach an unanimous verdict as required by law."
If I ran Bombardier, that guy'd be getting a LOT of free stuff about now.
The kid's mother and the boy should both be brought up on manslaughter charges, or something, but I know that'll never happen.
The plaintiff's lawyer plans to sue again, and ask for MORE money this time. I'd suggest that feeding this guy to the gators would be a good idea, but the gators would toss him back.
Gators DO have standards, ya know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Should be when these lawsuits happen.....the losing party should pay ALL Atty fees for both parties....Maybe then people will think before they just go ahead and blame people and use greedy atty's......BUT...I still hate PWC's...LOL
If it's a phony lawsuit, then yes, they should have to pay for the other’s fees, within reason. I’m not sure how the courts could allow her to sue the manufacturing company in the first place. I know my fingers have been bruised by a lot of hammers, but it’s none of the manufacturer’s faults.
I think the strange thing here is that she didn’t sue her boss, whose property her daughter was on when her daughter died. And since she was on company business, that opens up the company to a lawsuit too, although that’s really reaching, but not as far as suing over a sticker. Then again, how could the paint companies ever imagine kids 40+ years later would be fed paint chips by their parents so the parents get Federal money?
It’s a crazy world. Buy a personal water craft before they’re outlawed.
Post a Comment