PDA

View Full Version : MC Lawsuit


Pages : [1] 2

jeffbare
06-02-2011, 01:05 PM
How insane is this. Lawsuit against MC claims the accident is 99% MC, and 1% idiot driver.
Link to story: http://www.paradisepost.com/news/ci_18185450

pmkkdx
06-02-2011, 01:13 PM
wow! I knew an X45 was big, but fitting 19 people on it???

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 01:15 PM
This is exactly why you don't do bat turns...'

Have the skier pull out to the right, stop the boat, and turn around slowly to go back & pick them up.

It's really not that hard, actually takes less time this way and doesn't throw rollers for everyone else to suffer through.

EricB
06-02-2011, 01:17 PM
Typical of today's society and the personal inability to accept responsability for one's actions.

DemolitionMan
06-02-2011, 01:18 PM
Thats Crazy!!!

Rockman
06-02-2011, 01:19 PM
Just "quessing" here but the formula of:

1-Too big of a boat for
2-A novice boat owner who bought the boat because "it was cool looking", load it with
3-18 people in the boat (most likely no sitting in appropriate "seats") and
4-Add in some alcohol (just saying)

will give you a great big accident waiting to happen.


Sorry, MasterCraft can't design a boat to accomodate all idiots on the water

G-Star
06-02-2011, 01:21 PM
So, the moral of the story is that everything any company makes had better be 100% idiot-proof, or they're going to sued? Simply amazing.

So, the fact he has a huge boat, and he turned around and ate a wave is the fault of MC? Seems like crashing into the side of a bus and blaming Ford...

Montz bought the boat because it was cool-looking and because it was big, Duncan said.
Awesome. :mad:

Ski-me
06-02-2011, 01:25 PM
What's the seating capacity on that thing? 18 max?

They had 18 + boarder = 19 total??

G-Star
06-02-2011, 01:26 PM
What's the seating capacity on that thing? 18 max?

They had 19 + boarder = 20 total??

That's MC's fault too... they made a boat that you could overload with people. Plain old bad design.

Rockman
06-02-2011, 01:26 PM
I did not comment on the most important thing in this story that it was a tragedy and most likely the people who were hurt may have not known the risks they took when they jumped in the boat. That really sucks.


Awesome. :mad:[/QUOTE]

Definition of a DB...

G-Star
06-02-2011, 01:29 PM
I did not comment on the most important thing in this story that it was a tragedy and most likely the people who were hurt may have not known the risks they took when they jumped in the boat. That really sucks.


Awesome. :mad:['/QUOTE]

Definition of a DB...

Me? Or the guy who bought the boat and hurt the people?

scott023
06-02-2011, 01:33 PM
What a crock of ****e. Some retard take to the lack with a boat that is over capacity, makes a Wally turn to pick up a rider, and it'sthe manufacturers fault that occupants fell out??? Holy Mother of Pearl. The lawsuits that happen these days are beyond belief.



I can honestly say I would NEVER ever think to put the blame on the producing company. If I do something stupid, WTH should someone else get fingered for responsibility???

scott023
06-02-2011, 01:34 PM
Me? Or the guy who bought the boat and hurt the people?

Pretty sure John is refering to the DB who bought the boat, then operated it improperly.

Double D
06-02-2011, 01:35 PM
How insane is this. Lawsuit against MC claims the accident is 99% MC, and 1% idiot driver.
Link to story: http://www.paradisepost.com/news/ci_18185450

No offense to skiing lawyers on TT, but typical lawyer BS there!! Go to the deep pockets!

Moron statement #1 - "He bought the boat because it was cool-looking and because it was big."
oooo, aaahhhhh,

Moron statement #2 - "Duncan said he can accept Dreyer's recommendation that the jury assign 99 percent of the fault to MasterCraft and 1 percent to his client. Duncan thinks MasterCraft should have properly tested the boat before releasing it to consumers without proper warnings or functional design"
Did you take boat driving training and understand what boats cant do? Did you know you put to many people in it??

Current people rating on an X-45 is 18, not 19. = Operator Error

People fell out on a turn. Was that a power turn with a big cool-looking boat with 19 people in it??

The girl injured the most thought she ruined the day by falling out... What was she doing wrong?? Standing up??

OK, sorry for venting!! I just wish people would take responsibility for their mistakes!! Is this case, an unfortunate mistake...

flipper
06-02-2011, 01:35 PM
I wonder if that is the same guy that though cruise control was the same thing as auto pilot in his motorhome.

Double D
06-02-2011, 01:39 PM
I wonder if that is the same guy that though cruise control was the same thing as auto pilot in his motorhome.

I remember that!!

sand2snow22
06-02-2011, 01:39 PM
Surprised there wasn't more in the article from the other side. They seemed to quote only the lawyers that were suing....?

scott023
06-02-2011, 01:39 PM
No offense to skiing lawyers on TT, but typical lawyer BS there!! Go to the deep pockets!

Moron statement #1 - "He bought the boat because it was cool-looking and because it was big."
oooo, aaahhhhh,

Moron statement #2 - "Duncan said he can accept Dreyer's recommendation that the jury assign 99 percent of the fault to MasterCraft and 1 percent to his client. Duncan thinks MasterCraft should have properly tested the boat before releasing it to consumers without proper warnings or functional design"
Did you take boat driving training and understand what boats cant do? Did you know you put to many people in it??

Current people rating on an X-45 is 18, not 19. = Operator Error

People fell out on a turn. Was that a power turn with a big cool-looking boat with 19 people in it??

The girl injured the most thought she ruined the day by falling out... What was she doing wrong?? Standing up??

OK, sorry for venting!! I just wish people would take responsibility for their mistakes!! Is this case, an unfortunate mistake...

Agree 100%. One thing, the way I read that article, it says ''Montz was driving a 24-foot X-45 MasterCraft wakeboarding boat on Lake Oroville with 18 other people aboard. When the boat made a turn after the wakeboarder fell". That, to me, says there were 20 people on the boat.

Either way, the operator is to blame for making an unsafe turn in a boat that is not made to make quick turns that haven't been thought out.

scott023
06-02-2011, 01:40 PM
Surprised there wasn't more in the article from the other side. They seemed to quote only the lawyers that were suing....?

Some tidbits from the defense would have been nice, no doubt.

Ski-me
06-02-2011, 01:42 PM
Any ballast in there too??

scott023
06-02-2011, 01:47 PM
Some very interesting bits in this article.

http://forums.wakeboarder.com/viewtopic.php?p=1279837&sid=e11647d107950d0f4cd54cf58155f23b

Boat was front loaded, began taking on water. Bow occupants stood up, grabbed windshield, but were swept overboard.

How's that the manufacturers fault?

scott023
06-02-2011, 01:50 PM
Montz testified to haveing "three or four beers while on the water, but none while driving."


You're the boat owner and captain. Does it matter if you were operating it while drinking? You still consumed alcohol.

jdl xstar
06-02-2011, 01:51 PM
Some very interesting bits in this article.

http://forums.wakeboarder.com/viewtopic.php?p=1279837&sid=e11647d107950d0f4cd54cf58155f23b

Boat was front loaded, began taking on water. Bow occupants stood up, grabbed windshield, but were swept overboard.

How's that the manufacturers fault?

Can you cut and paste that article? My work blocks that website. thanks!

p.s. In the instances i have read about about boat accidents with injuries, somehow the boat company gets dragged into it for "designs flaws." As a previous poster said, they are just looking for deep pockets. Total BS and wish people would just take ownership of their own mistakes and foolishness.

aaron.
06-02-2011, 01:53 PM
This is sickening. I hope this case bankrupts this bastard so he can never afford another mastercraft again.

aaron.
06-02-2011, 01:54 PM
Can you cut and paste that article? My work blocks that website. thanks!


By RYAN OLSON-Staff Writer
Posted: 04/27/2011 12:28:07 AM PDT

CHICO — A Butte County Superior Court jury heard two more accounts of the July 2006 boating accident on Lake Oroville that left two injured.

One account came from Bethany Mercer, one of the injured, and the other from Jerry Montz, the driver and owner of the 24-foot-long wakeboarding boat.

Mercer, whose last name was Wallenburg before getting married in 2009, was dislodged from the boat along with Niki Bell on July 9, 2006. Mercer was injured on her arm, leg and back. Bell had multiple skull fractures and suffered brain damage and lost her left eye.

Montz and boat maker MasterCraft Boat Co. are being sued for damages related to the incident. Niki Bell testified in the case last month.

Montz, a lifelong boater, recounted how he purchased the MasterCraft X-45 in May 2006 for about $80,000. He said the wakeboarding craft had appealed to him because it was large, attractive and could accommodate a large number of people.

Prior to the incident, he said he had no problems with the boat, although it didn't accelerate as quickly as his old vessel on wakeboarding runs.

On the day of the incident, Montz and his friends wanted to go out on the lake after he finished work.

Mercer told the jury she was invited onto the boat by her roommate and another on the morning of the incident. They were the first to arrive at Lime Saddle Marina at about 1 p.m.

Others arrived, including Bell, with whom Mercer was a casual acquaintance. She met Montz for the first time when
Advertisement
she boarded the boat. Montz testified he knew neither Mercer nor Bell.

Mercer said she noticed a capacity label noting the boat's maximum capacity was 18 — prior testimony has established that there were up to 19 aboard. She said she was concerned about having a seat and enough space.

Montz said he was aware of the capacity limits. He testified he believed the boat could operate at maximum capacity, in addition to fuel and ballast water. Montz said he did not use the ballast tanks during the incident and did not use a mechanism geared to help the front of the boat travel lower in the water.

The boat eventually embarked on two wakeboarding runs. The first was unsuccessful. Mercer estimated that two people moved toward the front of the boat where she was sitting to shift the boat's balance to make it more conducive for boarding.

The second run was more successful. After the run, Montz said he slowed the boat to a stop and then turned around. At that point, the front of the boat began taking on water. Montz said he didn't initially see the water come aboard, but heard people screaming in surprise.

Mercer said she and everyone tried to stand up. She grabbed a windshield, but the water swept her off.

"I could feel it pulling me out," Mercer said.

Concerned about hitting the propeller, she tried to swim away from the boat but felt an impact that she initially thought was from the boat's swim deck. After surfacing, Mercer tried to move her legs, but had lacerations.

Montz said he didn't feel in control of the situation. When the water was coming aboard, he said he applied the gas in a technique geared to help the front of the boat over a wake — although he didn't see a wake. The boat's speed was about 5 to 10 mph. After he discovered people in the water, he put the motor in neutral.

Montz helped bring Bell aboard the boat and Mercer was bought aboard shortly thereafter. After that, a rescue boat was flagged down. Montz said he was concerned about Bell's health and he boarded the craft with the injured.

"I didn't want to leave it in someone else's hands," Montz said.

Both witnesses said they had bought beer before the trip and admitted to drinking some on the water.

Mercer said her job at the time included determining if restaurant patrons were intoxicated. She testified no one on the boat, including Montz, appeared to be. Mercer estimated having a total of one beer.

Defense attorneys attempted to present her statement to paramedics where she reportedly claimed to have had more. Judge Sandra McLean waved off the attempt for now.

Montz said he had had three to fours beers over several hours on the water, but none while driving the craft. His blood alcohol content was tested after the incident and it was below the .08 percent threshold typically used.

Montz is expected to continue testifying in the 22nd day of the trial today at the Chico courthouse.

The case is Robert Bell vs. MasterCraft Boat Co.

Staff writer Ryan can be reached at 896-7763 or rolson@chicoer.com.

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 01:56 PM
I listened to some of you guys' skiing advice on this forum and i hurt myself skiing this weekend...

Please send me your contact information, i am going to sue all of you because the advice sucked..

Thank you

MC

scott023
06-02-2011, 01:56 PM
Can you cut and paste that article? My work blocks that website. thanks!

p.s. In the instances i have read about about boat accidents with injuries, somehow the boat company gets dragged into it for "designs flaws." As a previous poster said, they are just looking for deep pockets. Total BS and wish people would just take ownership of their own mistakes and foolishness.

Here you go.

By RYAN OLSON-Staff Writer
Posted: 04/27/2011 12:28:07 AM PDT

CHICO — A Butte County Superior Court jury heard two more accounts of the July 2006 boating accident on Lake Oroville that left two injured.

One account came from Bethany Mercer, one of the injured, and the other from Jerry Montz, the driver and owner of the 24-foot-long wakeboarding boat.

Mercer, whose last name was Wallenburg before getting married in 2009, was dislodged from the boat along with Niki Bell on July 9, 2006. Mercer was injured on her arm, leg and back. Bell had multiple skull fractures and suffered brain damage and lost her left eye.

Montz and boat maker MasterCraft Boat Co. are being sued for damages related to the incident. Niki Bell testified in the case last month.

Montz, a lifelong boater, recounted how he purchased the MasterCraft X-45 in May 2006 for about $80,000. He said the wakeboarding craft had appealed to him because it was large, attractive and could accommodate a large number of people.

Prior to the incident, he said he had no problems with the boat, although it didn't accelerate as quickly as his old vessel on wakeboarding runs.

On the day of the incident, Montz and his friends wanted to go out on the lake after he finished work.

Mercer told the jury she was invited onto the boat by her roommate and another on the morning of the incident. They were the first to arrive at Lime Saddle Marina at about 1 p.m.

Others arrived, including Bell, with whom Mercer was a casual acquaintance. She met Montz for the first time when
Advertisement
she boarded the boat. Montz testified he knew neither Mercer nor Bell.

Mercer said she noticed a capacity label noting the boat's maximum capacity was 18 — prior testimony has established that there were up to 19 aboard. She said she was concerned about having a seat and enough space.

Montz said he was aware of the capacity limits. He testified he believed the boat could operate at maximum capacity, in addition to fuel and ballast water. Montz said he did not use the ballast tanks during the incident and did not use a mechanism geared to help the front of the boat travel lower in the water.

The boat eventually embarked on two wakeboarding runs. The first was unsuccessful. Mercer estimated that two people moved toward the front of the boat where she was sitting to shift the boat's balance to make it more conducive for boarding.

The second run was more successful. After the run, Montz said he slowed the boat to a stop and then turned around. At that point, the front of the boat began taking on water. Montz said he didn't initially see the water come aboard, but heard people screaming in surprise.

Mercer said she and everyone tried to stand up. She grabbed a windshield, but the water swept her off.

"I could feel it pulling me out," Mercer said.

Concerned about hitting the propeller, she tried to swim away from the boat but felt an impact that she initially thought was from the boat's swim deck. After surfacing, Mercer tried to move her legs, but had lacerations.

Montz said he didn't feel in control of the situation. When the water was coming aboard, he said he applied the gas in a technique geared to help the front of the boat over a wake — although he didn't see a wake. The boat's speed was about 5 to 10 mph. After he discovered people in the water, he put the motor in neutral.

Montz helped bring Bell aboard the boat and Mercer was bought aboard shortly thereafter. After that, a rescue boat was flagged down. Montz said he was concerned about Bell's health and he boarded the craft with the injured.

"I didn't want to leave it in someone else's hands," Montz said.

Both witnesses said they had bought beer before the trip and admitted to drinking some on the water.

Mercer said her job at the time included determining if restaurant patrons were intoxicated. She testified no one on the boat, including Montz, appeared to be. Mercer estimated having a total of one beer.

Defense attorneys attempted to present her statement to paramedics where she reportedly claimed to have had more. Judge Sandra McLean waved off the attempt for now.

Montz said he had had three to fours beers over several hours on the water, but none while driving the craft. His blood alcohol content was tested after the incident and it was below the .08 percent threshold typically used.

Montz is expected to continue testifying in the 22nd day of the trial today at the Chico courthouse.

The case is Robert Bell vs. MasterCraft Boat Co.

Staff writer Ryan can be reached at 896-7763 or rolson@chicoer.com.

aaron.
06-02-2011, 01:57 PM
beat ya. ;)

edit: hmmm emoticons aren't working today. 'wink'

aaron.
06-02-2011, 01:59 PM
I listened to some of you guys' skiing advice on this forum and i hurt myself skiing this weekend...

Please send me your contact information, i am going to sue all of you because the advice sucked..

Thank you

MC

hahaha for reals dude. sometimes its a little embarrassing to be an american, simply because of how many idiot greedy ones there are. makes me sad.

Kyle
06-02-2011, 01:59 PM
I can't believe the court is taking so long to say. "look stupid you should have gone over the owners manual and understood it clearly before overloading the vessel".


This is a prime example of a silver spooned arshole kid getting his daddy to buy him "COOL".

Over loading the boat is 99% mastercrafts fault??? And 1% stupids fault. Mc did not load the boat or drive it or pour the booze down a bunch of idiot mfers.


This right here is as bad as the stupid mfer who sued mcdonalds and won because the coffee was hot and there was no warning label saying "don't spill this as it can burn you" on the cups.

Pathetic.

scott023
06-02-2011, 01:59 PM
beat ya. ;)

edit: hmmm emoticons aren't working today. 'wink'

You sure did. :D

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 02:02 PM
This right here is as bad as the stupid mfer who sued mcdonalds and won because the coffee was hot and there was no warning label saying "don't spill this as it can burn you" on the cups.

I burned myself on Mickeys coffee this morning and your statements hurt my feelings... I'm very very hurt...

I'm going to sue kyle for punitive damages

Thank you

MC

willyt
06-02-2011, 02:07 PM
I listened to some of you guys' skiing advice on this forum and i hurt myself skiing this weekend...

Please send me your contact information, i am going to sue all of you because the advice sucked..

Thank you

MC

TX,
that makes too much sense. To compare with this case, you have to say "I didnt listen to some of you guys' skiing advice on this forum and i hurt myself skiing this weekend...

Please send me your contact information, i am going to sue all of you because the advice was good and i didnt listen..

If we dont successfully defend ourselves in this one MC needs some new lawyers.

CantRepeat
06-02-2011, 02:08 PM
This is all I would need to know if I was on the jury.

"Montz said he didn't feel in control of the situation. When the water was coming aboard, he said he applied the gas in a technique geared to help the front of the boat over a wake — although he didn't see a wake. The boat's speed was about 5 to 10 mph. After he discovered people in the water, he put the motor in neutral."

He fook'en drove over them after he overloaded the front of the boat and then swamp it. He was more worried about sinking his boat then the safety of the people on board.

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 02:10 PM
I bet the plaintiffs brother boats on Smith Mountain Lake


LMFAO

flipper
06-02-2011, 02:11 PM
I'm headed to court tomorrow. The swimsuit thread gave me carpal tunnel syndrome and I'm missing work because of it.

Rockman
06-02-2011, 02:11 PM
Me? Or the guy who bought the boat and hurt the people?

The guy who bought the boat, not you!

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 02:13 PM
I'm headed to court tomorrow. The swimsuit thread gave me carpal tunnel syndrome and I'm missing work because of it.

Can we make this a class action, please?

flipper
06-02-2011, 02:15 PM
Can we make this a class action, please?
Not a bad idea.

scott023
06-02-2011, 02:16 PM
I'm headed to court tomorrow. The swimsuit thread gave me carpal tunnel syndrome and I'm missing work because of it.

ROTFLMAO.



Winner, winner. :o:D

supturb89
06-02-2011, 02:25 PM
This is all I would need to know if I was on the jury.

"Montz said he didn't feel in control of the situation. When the water was coming aboard, he said he applied the gas in a technique geared to help the front of the boat over a wake — although he didn't see a wake. The boat's speed was about 5 to 10 mph. After he discovered people in the water, he put the motor in neutral."

He fook'en drove over them after he overloaded the front of the boat and then swamp it. He was more worried about sinking his boat then the safety of the people on board.

Couldn't have said it better.....+1...ditto

DooSPX
06-02-2011, 02:36 PM
I really doubt this suite will go through. There are warning labels all over the boats... plus, he made a power turn. That's idiot operator all over it.
Also, Am I incorrect in thinking that the X45 only seats 16 per USCG? If so, 19 is over the weight and persons limit anyway.

east tx skier
06-02-2011, 02:37 PM
No offense to skiing lawyers on TT, but typical lawyer BS there!! Go to the deep pockets!

Moron statement #1 - "He bought the boat because it was cool-looking and because it was big."
oooo, aaahhhhh,

Moron statement #2 - "Duncan said he can accept Dreyer's recommendation that the jury assign 99 percent of the fault to MasterCraft and 1 percent to his client. Duncan thinks MasterCraft should have properly tested the boat before releasing it to consumers without proper warnings or functional design"
Did you take boat driving training and understand what boats cant do? Did you know you put to many people in it??

Current people rating on an X-45 is 18, not 19. = Operator Error

People fell out on a turn. Was that a power turn with a big cool-looking boat with 19 people in it??

The girl injured the most thought she ruined the day by falling out... What was she doing wrong?? Standing up??

OK, sorry for venting!! I just wish people would take responsibility for their mistakes!! Is this case, an unfortunate mistake...

None taken. The boat driver was an idiot. Bet this suit gets poured out.

scott023
06-02-2011, 02:39 PM
I really doubt this suite will go through. There are warning labels all over the boats... plus, he made a power turn. That's idiot operator all over it.
Also, Am I incorrect in thinking that the X45 only seats 16 per USCG? If so, 19 is over the weight and persons limit anyway.

The 45 is rated at 18 persons, or 2928lbs.

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 02:42 PM
Crap! I just got a paper cut...


BRB guys, calling my attorney...

onejdgreen
06-02-2011, 02:47 PM
This absolutely crazy!! Whoops, I shouldn't say crazy because I might get sued by someone who has a history of mental health problems...

Its terrible that 2 young ladies were hurt and regardless of whethere the suit goes through or not it puts the bad spotlight on MC.

Double D
06-02-2011, 02:53 PM
Crap! I just got a paper cut...


BRB guys, calling my attorney...

Like!!!!!!!!!!

bobx1
06-02-2011, 03:31 PM
......Bet this suit gets poured out.

ETS (or any attorney on the board):

How does this generally play out, from a law suit standpoint?

Step 1 - Let's sue Montz (the boat owner) for being an idiot.

Step 2 - Montz is found to have no assets because he financed an $80K boat over 7 years and now owes more than it is worth.

Stept 3 - Since Montz is broke, let's sue
MasterCraft

and/or the US Coast Guard (for faulty capacity regulations)

and/or the State for not requiring a boaters license

and/or Anheuser Busch because the beer gave them a buzz but did not state he could not operate a boat after consumption

and/or Exxon for the fuel because without fuel the prop wont turn

and/or the prop manufacturer

etc.

Do you go into this with the hope that you get to seat some dumb jurors and someone will have enough money to pay up and the defense will have dumb attorneys?

You say it will get "poured" out (which I assume you mean dismissed) but why is this 3+ weeks into a jury trial if that is the case?

Two words....

"Loser Pays"

or

"Tort Reform"

flipper
06-02-2011, 03:45 PM
Either way, there is a group of people out of work for a few weeks while they have to listen to this pile of crap. Not to mention the cost of running the court to hear this pile of crap.

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 04:04 PM
Step 2 - Montz is found to have no assets because he financed an $80K boat over 7 years and now owes more than it is worth.

Whattttt? He would have financed an $80K boat over 150 years... I have seen boat loans of 30K for 20 years at boat shows... "At $150/month, you can afford it!!"

MC

flipper
06-02-2011, 04:05 PM
"I need to keep my payments low"

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 04:08 PM
Well sh*t, this is the 3rd time this week I got liquid paper on my monitor while using MS Word...


Time to sue Microsoft...

j.mccreight@hotmail.com
06-02-2011, 04:22 PM
^ thats funny right there

ski_king
06-02-2011, 04:23 PM
The really sad part of this is someone was injured and it sounds like she is disabled for life.

I wonder how much liability coverage the owner had on his policy. Most policies I have seen are less than 1M.

DooSPX
06-02-2011, 04:34 PM
The 45 is rated at 18 persons, or 2928lbs.

Thanks for the correction scott!

trickskier
06-02-2011, 04:35 PM
I wish someone would run over those attorneys and put them out of their misery!!!

scott023
06-02-2011, 04:38 PM
Thanks for the correction scott!

HA. Wasn't meant that way. Just pointing out the dude was over capacity one way or another.

DooSPX
06-02-2011, 04:50 PM
No, I meant that. Thank you. I did not know if 16 was correct or not. The stupid emoticons are not working again. Either way, he was OVER the capacity of the vessel, there fore, I do not think they lawyers have any legal leg to stand on.

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 04:52 PM
The 45 is rated at 18 persons, or 2928lbs.

So, my ex wife and her hubby couldn't invite anyone to go with them.

scott023
06-02-2011, 04:55 PM
No, I meant that. Thank you. I did not know if 16 was correct or not. The stupid emoticons are not working again. Either way, he was OVER the capacity of the vessel, there fore, I do not think they lawyers have any legal leg to stand on.

And he was drinking as well. Hard to believe a situation like this gets to court....

scott023
06-02-2011, 04:55 PM
So, my ex wife and her hubby couldn't invite anyone to go with them.

You like 'em big, eh?:D:D:D

aquaman
06-02-2011, 05:08 PM
No, I meant that. Thank you. I did not know if 16 was correct or not. The stupid emoticons are not working again. Either way, he was OVER the capacity of the vessel, there fore, I do not think they lawyers have any legal leg to stand on.


Everyone knows accidents are not caused by "the boat" or the "hot coffee". :)

Legal shakedowns cause the price of everything to increa$e.


Tort reform is the answer to these "legal shakedowns".

Sad day for MasterCraft...we will all pay due to the greed of lawyers.

Tri4X2
06-02-2011, 05:17 PM
I'm headed to court tomorrow. The swimsuit thread gave me carpal tunnel syndrome and I'm missing work because of it.
ROBLOL (rolling on boat LoL)

east tx skier
06-02-2011, 05:17 PM
ETS (or any attorney on the board):

How does this generally play out, from a law suit standpoint?

Step 1 - Let's sue Montz (the boat owner) for being an idiot.

Step 2 - Montz is found to have no assets because he financed an $80K boat over 7 years and now owes more than it is worth.

Stept 3 - Since Montz is broke, let's sue
MasterCraft

and/or the US Coast Guard (for faulty capacity regulations)

and/or the State for not requiring a boaters license

and/or Anheuser Busch because the beer gave them a buzz but did not state he could not operate a boat after consumption

and/or Exxon for the fuel because without fuel the prop wont turn

and/or the prop manufacturer

etc.

Do you go into this with the hope that you get to seat some dumb jurors and someone will have enough money to pay up and the defense will have dumb attorneys?

You say it will get "poured" out (which I assume you mean dismissed) but why is this 3+ weeks into a jury trial if that is the case?

Two words....

"Loser Pays"

or

"Tort Reform"

Is there a question in there somewhere? ;) I'm an appellate lawyer and have long left the trial litigation world. Those two suggested fixes won't fix much is my bet or if they prevent something like this, they would also prevent someone from filing suit who has actually been injured and has a real claim. It's pretty rare when you see folks on this board demanding government intervention, that's for sure. 8p

By "get poured out," I mean they won't get a judgment or collect damages from MC. Most likely it will be dealt with at summary judgment, which will (or should) happen long before trial.

TxsRiverRat
06-02-2011, 05:28 PM
You like 'em big, eh?:D:D:D

No, he does ;)

bobx1
06-02-2011, 05:46 PM
Is there a question in there somewhere?......

Long post I know and you answered the real question (should have been thrown out with a summary judgement before trial). I guess I am shocked that it got this far (3 weeks with a jury).

ShamrockIV
06-02-2011, 06:05 PM
can i sue Miller for my beer belly??????

drylandfish
06-02-2011, 06:07 PM
can i sue Miller for my beer belly??????

You had that before you were drinking Miller! lol

ShamrockIV
06-02-2011, 06:27 PM
You had that before you were drinking Miller! lol

no mr cant come to the lake guy. i got it from miller and then quit now i am back on it. lol

trickskier
06-02-2011, 06:34 PM
Montz testified to haveing "three or four beers while on the water, but none while driving."


You're the boat owner and captain. Does it matter if you were operating it while drinking? You still consumed alcohol.

I wonder what the time frame was that he consumed them in?

Lars
06-02-2011, 08:27 PM
I feel like I need to jump in and say a little something about that Mcdonald's coffee case since it's so often referenced. We studied it in college and there actually was some merit. Mcdonald's brewed their coffee much hotter(180 degrees) than the popular accepted temperature for coffee(140) and continued to do so even when they knew it could be a burn hazard. THAT is why they lost that case.

CantRepeat
06-02-2011, 08:31 PM
I feel like I need to jump in and say a little something about that Mcdonald's coffee case since it's so often referenced. We studied it in college and there actually was some merit. Mcdonald's brewed their coffee much hotter(180 degrees) than the popular accepted temperature for coffee(140) and continued to do so even when they knew it could be a burn hazard. THAT is why they lost that case.

I as a reasonable person would EXPECT hot coffee to be HOT.

Once again, if I would have been on the jury, no sale!

Kyle
06-02-2011, 09:23 PM
I as a reasonable person would EXPECT hot coffee to be HOT.

Once again, if I would have been on the jury, no sale!

So did the tool bag looser use a thermometer to know that mcdonalds was in violation of having hot coffee before he poured it on himself.

Its news to me that there is a temperature limit violation for coffee.

Most of the problems with society is that most are lacking common sense and are pure idiots.

DooSPX
06-02-2011, 09:27 PM
I agree with CantRepeat! All it takes in common sense, but it seems as though no one has it anymore.
Hmm... coffee? Will it burn me? YES!!!!! Even at 140 degrees, it will still burn you!

The MC lawsuit... lets recap... Drinking? Check! Over USCG capacity? Check! Too much weight/persons in the bow? Check! Swamping the bow, sweeping occupants out? Check! People standing up while underway? Check! Inexperienced/Incompetent operator? Check!
Trying to blame the manufacture of the vessel for your stupidity? CHECK!!! REALLY????

Inboards are the safest besides a jet that you can get protecting people from the prop! If you run someone over... IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR GOD SAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim@BAWS
06-02-2011, 09:42 PM
The 45 is rated at 18 persons, or 2928lbs.\



EITHER OR....NOT BOTH

east tx skier
06-02-2011, 09:51 PM
I feel like I need to jump in and say a little something about that Mcdonald's coffee case since it's so often referenced. We studied it in college and there actually was some merit. Mcdonald's brewed their coffee much hotter(180 degrees) than the popular accepted temperature for coffee(140) and continued to do so even when they knew it could be a burn hazard. THAT is why they lost that case.

That case is as much of a cautionary tale about customer service as anything. The people at that McDonalds reacted like any of us would have when she told them she'd burned herself. Coffee is hot. Your legs are not a cup holder. Problem is, they're not any of us. They treated her like an idiot, which most of us thing that she is, and that pi$$ed her off enough to want some payback. Had they offered her a McShake to cool down, she'd have probably cooled down and it would have cost them a lot less.

I also recall reading that award came down a pretty hefty sum on appeal, but ICBW.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the suit against MC. It doesn't help this guy's case that half the things he did, the MC owner's manual tells you NOT to do in the first 5 pages.

east tx skier
06-02-2011, 09:55 PM
can i sue Miller for my beer belly??????

You might get past summary judgment with that suit since it is a fact question as to whether Miller should be considered beer.

/zing.

Thrall
06-02-2011, 11:02 PM
Easy Doug, I resemble that remark!
Slightly on topic, got my first ride(s) in a friends brand spankin new LSA powered X45 last weekend! Bad @ss boat for sure! Water was rough as heck and turning around to pick up a rider while surfing he got a little water over the nose a couple times, actually more than a couple because the kids up front all thought it was funny so he started splashing them on purpose!
I think I should sue him because after wards my kids' teeth were chattering and they were cold from being splashed. Hmmmmmm, I think I'll sue for the title to the boat!!!!

Lars
06-02-2011, 11:52 PM
Actually she needed a skin graft on her legs, but yes, back to the Mastercraft issue!

Thrall
06-02-2011, 11:57 PM
Actually she needed a skin graft on her legs, but yes, back to the Mastercraft issue!

I feel terrible for the injured passengers. They probably didn't know they were going boating with teh world's largest dumb@ss. But to sue the boat mfr is out of line, crazy what some people will do for money. The company I work for gets sued for stuff that crazy all the time. Liability is one of our biggest liabilites!
Deepest pockets get emptied first, or at least attempted.

kevkan
06-03-2011, 12:47 AM
All right, I am compelled to reply. I am not a lawyer, but I am well aware of how product lawsuits work.

First of all, the McDonalds deal was legit. McDs required their franchises to serve their coffee way hotter than the competition. They got lots of complaints of burns. They ignored them. This lady got burned bad, in her crotch, requiring skin grafts. All she wanted from McDs was her medicals. They told her to Mc F off. She sued. Jury heard McDs history of wanting the hottest coffee in the industry, and the burns it caused, which they knew were occuring. Jury awarded one days coffee sales of Mc D. Judge reduced. Later a settlement was reached, which is confidential.
read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

As for this case, the people suing, should really be considered harmless. They got in a big boat, with a bunch of people. How were these two girls to know the situation was dangerous?

They sued the boat mfg. and the driver. One must assume the driver has some liability insurance, in addition to his assetts. But, I doubt it will cover the expected costs of the girl that got the prop to the head. The jury will decide who is to blame, and could blame the driver entirely.

Maybe, just maybe, there was some evidence that MC knew the bow would dip on the X45, but figured "experienced" drivers would be ok. Sorry, MCs are not sold to experienced drivers only. MC has marketted to all boat purchasers. I'm not saying there is a problem with the X45, I'm just saying there could be. MC has gone mainstream, and sells way more boats than back in the 80's, which means Wally's own MCs.

FourFourty
06-03-2011, 07:41 AM
Maybe, just maybe, there was some evidence that MC knew the bow would dip on the X45, but figured "experienced" drivers would be ok. Sorry, MCs are not sold to experienced drivers only. MC has marketted to all boat purchasers. I'm not saying there is a problem with the X45, I'm just saying there could be. MC has gone mainstream, and sells way more boats than back in the 80's, which means Wally's own MCs.

I dont get it..... I am sure MC does know that the bow could dip under those conditions....Just like EVERY other open bow inboard on the market. Whats your point?

Question of the day is- Where were these two people sitting? Down in the seat where they belong? Or up on the Bow/Gunwhales?? Was that detail disclosed?? Did I miss it?

Ryan
06-03-2011, 08:33 AM
I dont get it..... I am sure MC does know that the bow could dip under those conditions....Just like EVERY other open bow inboard on the market. Whats your point?

Question of the day is- Where were these two people sitting? Down in the seat where they belong? Or up on the Bow/Gunwhales?? Was that detail disclosed?? Did I miss it?

This article answers that question. Some were sitting on the gunwhales of the bow because the bow was too crouded to sit.

Also has more defense quotes.

http://www.chicoer.com/fromthenewspaper/ci_18197790

jamisonsbrodie
06-03-2011, 10:19 AM
As ridiculous as this maybe be, unfortunately jury's are becoming more and more apt to place blame on supposed "big bad corporations".

Here is another ridiculous suit as proof:

http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/home/514150-appeals-court-brunswick-partially-liable-in-prop-accident

scott023
06-03-2011, 10:46 AM
I wonder what the time frame was that he consumed them in?

Relevant question, but still shows a lack of responsbility IMO.

scott023
06-03-2011, 10:48 AM
The 45 is rated at 18 persons, or 2928lbs.

\



EITHER OR....NOT BOTH

Hence the ''or'' in my post. :D

thatsmrmastercraft
06-03-2011, 10:51 AM
Hence the ''or'' in my post. :D

Must be using words that are too big for Jim. JK

Dang, now I don't get the smileys!?!

ski_king
06-03-2011, 11:01 AM
.....Dang, now I don't get the smileys!?!

I think the smileys were disabled in fear of being sued.

EWood1326
06-03-2011, 11:38 AM
[QUOTE=FourFourty;758909]I dont get it..... I am sure MC does know that the bow could dip under those conditions....Just like EVERY other open bow inboard on the market. Whats your point?

agreed my old supra did it a few times. depending on weight in the front that made it worse and maybe me talking to some one and not paying attn. to it fixing to dip and my friends xstar has done it big time once. That supra was a 2000 and my friends xstar is a 2004 two different boats that are made to sit low in the water it has a high chance of happening when you over max a boat with people sitting in places they shouldn't hummmm... maybe if you didnt feel safe you souldnt have got on the boat. I think its all on the driver and his inabillity to read his passenger capacity lable to be mister popular with the ladies.

also all the years they have been making wakeboard boates with many manufactures and this one time a moran causes a accident lets blame the boat not the one operating it.

TayMC197
06-03-2011, 12:11 PM
I just read about a lawsuit that involved a version of bayliner. It was an inboard/outboard boat where a ski rope fell in the water. The individual jumped in after it and the driver put the boat in reverse hitting the persons leg.. his leg was cut off at the hip and the court found ruled that 4.2 million be split 50/50 between the driver and the manufacturer. The reasons being that the manufacturer didn't put safe guards on the boat to prevent someone from being hit by the prop. So the ruled the boat was unsafe for the "standard" operator. In the case of Mastercraft the suit is much higher and I don't see it being held to that amount. I'm sure it will be reduced drastically. So i'm sure mc will be hit with a portion of the lawsuit, just not sure of how much.

Really sucks though...

G-Star
06-03-2011, 12:42 PM
..............
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qWovdGs59MY/Snw1xdZ3ebI/AAAAAAAABA0/SzXnNoFdRMs/s400/i-see-stupid-people.jpg

trickskier
06-03-2011, 12:44 PM
..............
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qWovdGs59MY/Snw1xdZ3ebI/AAAAAAAABA0/SzXnNoFdRMs/s400/i-see-stupid-people.jpg

LMAO --- Good One!!!

acornellier
06-03-2011, 02:02 PM
Isn't that the truth!

skijwr
06-07-2011, 11:31 PM
Liability assessed in Lake Oroville accident; more than $30 million awarded
Posted: 06/07/2011
The jury today assigned 80 percent of the liability to MasterCraft over the design of the boat, and 20 percent to (driver) Montz. Bell was awarded $30.9 million; Mercer, $530,688.

http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_18224714

kskonn
06-07-2011, 11:38 PM
That is absolutely horrible! I hope MC legal appeals this, not sure if it would matter. It is almost impossible for a corporation to get a Jury of its peers, if you have a couple morons on the Jury you are screwed.

kskonn
06-07-2011, 11:40 PM
FYI- I hope the 6 million that the driver is on the hook for bankrupts him.

sand2snow22
06-07-2011, 11:41 PM
I don't know all of the details, but what is this world coming to? Hopefully they appeal and hit them back hard!

skijwr
06-07-2011, 11:45 PM
more details.....
----------
A Butte County jury voted 10-2.
Following a three-month trial, evidence showed that Mastercraft's X45 24-foot boat was designed with a hole in the bow that could cause it to take on water, said Dreyer.
"The manufacturer never presented a single document to show they ever even tested this boat before putting it on the market," said Dreyer.

http://www.kcra.com/r/28164425/detail.html

Kyle
06-08-2011, 12:16 AM
Boat prices just went up because of this stupid mfer.

jdhart73
06-08-2011, 12:52 AM
UN-FRICK-IN-BELIEVABLE!!!!

X45 bargains in the near future from ignorant owners that believe the hype?

wow

iplount
06-08-2011, 01:10 AM
Just can't believe it!

Kyle
06-08-2011, 01:34 AM
I wonder if this causes a recall or some off the wall no more 45's being built.

Matt L.
06-08-2011, 02:00 AM
"Mastercraft's X45 24-foot boat was designed with a hole in the bow that could cause it to take on water"

Hmmm let me throw out a wild guess. The "Hole" in bow is the bow. As I seem to recall if you push the bow under a big roller it will actually take on water.

I see a cuddy cabin X-45 headed our way in the near future. My 240SC has only taken on water once when I came off the throttle and let it settle in to the trough of a huge roller. Came right up over the bow and about 2 gallons came in the open top hatch. Was actually pretty cool when it soaked the kids laying in the cuddy:o They didn't know what happened.

People are so stupid! I should have sued too! ;)

Later,

Matt

FourFourty
06-08-2011, 08:36 AM
Oh No!! My X25 has a bow ladder with the holes too!!

BRB- grabbing some tiger hair to plug holes and close the bow in before my boat sweeps all of my friends away and then filets them with the prop...

Every one of those jurors should be hit in the head with a tackhammer....idiots

CantRepeat
06-08-2011, 08:47 AM
more details.....
----------
A Butte County jury voted 10-2.
Following a three-month trial, evidence showed that Mastercraft's X45 24-foot boat was designed with a hole in the bow that could cause it to take on water, said Dreyer.
"The manufacturer never presented a single document to show they ever even tested this boat before putting it on the market," said Dreyer.

http://www.kcra.com/r/28164425/detail.html

10 out of 12 have never operated a boat.

Iskidaily
06-08-2011, 08:51 AM
What a severe disappointment. We have removed the notion of personal responsibility.

mseller
06-08-2011, 09:24 AM
so it sounds like I can get wasted on my x45 and not have any liability at all?!?! this is such an awful verdict

MNWild
06-08-2011, 09:37 AM
Sad story for any boat owner. I don't know why MC's lawyers don't get a detailed listing of everyone and everthing on that boat. The 18 Persons or 2,928 lbs capacity is averaging 162 lbs/person and gear (coolers, boat bags, skis, boards, air chairs, etc), this is up from 150 lbs a few years ago, the USGC upped it because we're a larger nation. This boat had 19 people on board, let's weigh them up with all the gear and show that MC can't be held responsible for an over loaded boat? It's not a design flaw when the boat is not properly driven.

73blue
06-08-2011, 09:42 AM
That is absolutely horrible! I hope MC legal appeals this, not sure if it would matter. It is almost impossible for a corporation to get a Jury of its peers, if you have a couple morons on the Jury you are screwed.

This. The merits of the case don't matter at all. The jury sees a girl scarred for life and the driver can't afford to pay what he'll get hit with. So they turn to the corporation, because, hey, its a corporation, not a group of individuals trying to make a living (sarcasm).

sand2snow22
06-08-2011, 09:47 AM
I hope this has nothing to do with the rumored X-Star becoming 24 ft for 2012......I would think they would drop X-45 if so????

FourFourty
06-08-2011, 09:58 AM
I hope this has nothing to do with the rumored X-Star becoming 24 ft for 2012......I would think they would drop X-45 if so????

I highly doubt they would drop the X45. Its a popular boat, with a great layout, and great wakes. Even if the XStar went to 24', There would be no reason to drop the X45 just because it was the same length...... Take for example the fact that the X25, X15, and Current XStar are all essentially 22 footers.... But they are still very different boats...

cbryan70
06-08-2011, 10:33 AM
http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/home/514357-jury-rules-against-mastercraft-in-design-lawsuit

cbryan70
06-08-2011, 10:34 AM
12 People In The Bow

DooSPX
06-08-2011, 10:37 AM
the stupidity of the general public is out standing!!!!

willyt
06-08-2011, 11:09 AM
this is absolutely ridiculous, and that jury is retarded. Gotta believe that amount is going to come down drastically upon appeal.

Anyone want to sell their soon to be recalled 45 to me:) ?

MIskier
06-08-2011, 11:12 AM
I still am in awe that the judge did not throw this case out at the very start, let alone the damn thing goes all the way through trial to a verdict against MC for some dingles idiocy. This proves that there is absolutely no common sense left in the justice system. Anyone with half a brain on that jury should have been able to figure out that 100% of the blame be placed on the driver, and the passengers without the common sense to know that if there is no more room to sit than you are putting yourself in a dangerous situation by sitting outside the boat!

"The defense said Montz allowed too many people on board — 19 — in a craft rated for 18. Moreover, Nielsen said, Montz allowed 12 passengers to sit in the bow." Bam, right there should have been enough to prove that Montz is an unbelievably irresponsible human being and deserves 100% of the blame. Fing unbelivable!!

DooSPX
06-08-2011, 11:16 AM
The same reason someone charged with grand theft can get 10 years and a rapist or molester can get out in 1-5. Go figure...

I do not understand why the judge didn't throw it out either MIskier. The driver was drinking (illegal), over USCG capacity (illegal), 12 people in the bow of a boat (STUPID), doesn't know how to drive a boat (STUPID)

Justjoe
06-08-2011, 11:16 AM
Throw. You can, of course throw through....but, whatever.

plunk77
06-08-2011, 11:31 AM
this is such crap. almost makes me sick reading about it

92 190 PS
06-08-2011, 11:45 AM
the stupidity of the general public is out standing!!!!

A jury of your peers Doo. Last time I was on a jury I couldn't find a peer of mine in the flippin courthouse let alone on the jury. Scary stuff gentlemen scary stuff. And just think they get to vote......:mad:

DooSPX
06-08-2011, 11:49 AM
Tell me about it....

sand2snow22
06-08-2011, 11:54 AM
http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/home/514357-jury-rules-against-mastercraft-in-design-lawsuit

It sounds like they had a lot of people in the bow to get the boat to plane. When the rider fell, driver probably came off plane, dunked the bow, panicked, gunned it, 2 went into the water and he ran them over......

Is it me or is the MC lawyer only talking common sense?

How does the plaintiffs attorney know how MC designed the boat? They just cut 2 boats in half and put them together? Give me a break.....

"They took two existing boats and combined them, but never engineered it. They made it very large so a lot of people could be in it. If it dips, the water pours in and that's what happened"

cbryan70
06-08-2011, 11:57 AM
It should be interesting what comes of all this in the end. I do think that it is funny that 10 of the 12 I beleive someone said had NO boating experience.

ddanenberger
06-08-2011, 11:58 AM
This comes down to the judge, jury instruction and jury's. They don not seem to understand fault. A few years ago I was a expert on a suicide for a case where someone jumped out a 5 story window. The jumpers family was asserting that if the building did not have a window thier son would not have jumped. The need for the window was driven by the building code so my client was found to have no fault nor responsibility by the jury, yet they awarded 3 mil in pain and suffering to the family.

Our civil legal system is broke.

sand2snow22
06-08-2011, 11:59 AM
Does anyone else besides me think the competition is calling their insurance companies today to up their limits?

Double D
06-08-2011, 12:05 PM
http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/home/514357-jury-rules-against-mastercraft-in-design-lawsuit

.................................................. ...............................speechless......... .................................................. .................................................. ....Why am I not surprised......................................... .................................................. ........................

What the ****!!!!!

aquaman
06-08-2011, 12:11 PM
It sounds like they had a lot of people in the bow to get the boat to plane. When the rider fell, driver probably came off plane, dunked the bow, panicked, gunned it, 2 went into the water and he ran them over......

Is it me or is the MC lawyer only talking common sense?

How does the plaintiffs attorney know how MC designed the boat? They just cut 2 boats in half and put them together? Give me a break.....

"They took two existing boats and combined them, but never engineered it. They made it very large so a lot of people could be in it. If it dips, the water pours in and that's what happened"

Seems like the incident could be repeated if ANY bow-rider boat was overloaded ,went off plane and cut power. It is NOT the boats fault......???

sand2snow22
06-08-2011, 12:19 PM
Seems like the incident could be repeated if ANY bow-rider boat was overloaded ,went off plane and cut power. It is NOT the boats fault......???

Looks like we'll be seeing a new sticker/capacity plate for the bows. 'Bow capacity-3 people or 350 lbs......'

cbryan70
06-08-2011, 12:21 PM
im going to throw a couple of people on my closed bow for ski runs to make the wake better....it does not say that i cant...

thatsmrmastercraft
06-08-2011, 12:25 PM
the stupidity of the general public is out standing!!!!

I still am in awe that the judge did not throw this case out at the very start, let alone the damn thing goes all the way through trial to a verdict against MC for some dingles idiocy. This proves that there is absolutely no common sense left in the justice system. Anyone with half a brain on that jury should have been able to figure out that 100% of the blame be placed on the driver, and the passengers without the common sense to know that if there is no more room to sit than you are putting yourself in a dangerous situation by sitting outside the boat!

"The defense said Montz allowed too many people on board — 19 — in a craft rated for 18. Moreover, Nielsen said, Montz allowed 12 passengers to sit in the bow." Bam, right there should have been enough to prove that Montz is an unbelievably irresponsible human being and deserves 100% of the blame. Fing unbelivable!!

That there is a jury of your peers Doo. Last time I was on a jury I couldn't find what I thought was a peer of mine in the flippin courthouse let alone on the jury. Scary stuff gentlemen scary stuff. And just think they get to vote......:mad:

This comes down to the judge, jury instruction and jury's. They don not seem to understand fault. A few years ago I was a expert on a suicide for a case where someone jumped out a 5 story window. The jumpers family was asserting that if the building did not have a window thier son would not have jumped. The need for the window was driven by the building code so my client was found to have no fault nor responsibility by the jury, yet they awarded 3 mil in pain and suffering to the family.

Our civil legal system is broke.

Perhaps we need to take the jury list from a different source than the registered voter list - haven't exactly hit a lot of home runs lately.

Kyle
06-08-2011, 12:27 PM
I wish I could get 500,000 or 30m for a poor decision that I make. Any person with a 1/32 of a damn brain would say this is unsafe and we need to move to even out the boat. Sounds like temporal lobe birch was as sharp as a bowling ball to begin with and the other stupid sealut deserves her cut too. Anyone in their right mind would have thought that there are too many people up here.

It's totally sad as there is not 12 seats in the bow. This leaving the driver responsible for evening out his crew.

For some reason I believe that if a patrol boat was seeing all of this the story or outcome would be the driver 100% at fault and have some tickets to go along with the fault.

Were there enough vests? (I always ask this when going on someones boat besides mine)
Was everyone under legal limit if not then hand out PI to everyone in violation?
How much empty open containers were on board vs people?

This is bull chit.

captain planet
06-08-2011, 12:28 PM
the stupidity of the general public is out standing!!!!

Times 2. The stupidity of the general public amazes me more and more with each passing day. So, the plate on the boat says 18....and the guy had 19......case closed.....but not according to these people. I don't know what else to say about this, I think the rest of you have covered it.

Oh, so if it is supposed to be a jury of your peers.....doesn't that mean that half of the jury should have been boaters???? Naw, that makes too much sense.

Huskie05
06-08-2011, 12:38 PM
I have an X55 and can't imagine putting or fitting for that matter 12 people in the bow. 12 people!!! 12 people would be a lot in the boat period, but having 12 in the front and 7 in the back, most likely had the ballast tanks flooded, and a boat full of crap and beer.

This gives me 0 faith in the justice system. You may have your day in court, but get totally blindsided by ignorance, selfishness, and stupidity. If I was the defense I would have brought in a fuly loaded x45, put 19 people in it, 12 of them in the front, and showed the jury what that looked like. Also, I would have then attacked booze had everything to do with the poor decision of overloading the bow. airplanes can carry 250 people, you don't load them all in the front, or back, or on one side. Common sense is not a crime any more. Do what you want, have fun, goes wrong, get $30 million.....
I would love to have a talk with the dumb a** that was driving. I bet he is a major tool in life and has made a lot of questionable decisions.

Huskie05
06-08-2011, 12:47 PM
Times 2. The stupidity of the general public amazes me more and more with each passing day. So, the plate on the boat says 18....and the guy had 19......case closed.....but not according to these people. I don't know what else to say about this, I think the rest of you have covered it.

Oh, so if it is supposed to be a jury of your peers.....doesn't that mean that half of the jury should have been boaters???? Naw, that makes too much sense.

I bet they had 19 life jackets on board. NOT!!! The more I think about this the more I get pissed... I take huge pride in saftey while boating. No drinking and driving, life jacktes for everyone, etc...etc... These are the jackasses that give us all a bad name with the wakeboarding boats. I bought a MC because of the safety, wanted a safer boat for my kids while behind the boat, no outdirve bravo 3 breathing down their necks while surfing and boarding.

wakescene
06-08-2011, 01:05 PM
If I was the defense I would have brought in a fully loaded x45, put 19 people in it, 12 of them in the front, and showed the jury what that looked like.

I doubt it was done, but had it been, I would have hoped MC would have made the owner immediately relinquish ownership of the boat without compensation. The onus of this entire case is clearly on the owner/driver/operator! Every news article about it points to that.

Rockman
06-08-2011, 01:20 PM
Make sure the next time you are out on the water and see this boat owner, stop by, say hello and then punch his fn jaw loose.

This whole thing is messed up from the beginning and has come to a pathetic end. What a sad world we live.

Huskie05
06-08-2011, 01:23 PM
Make sure the next time you are out on the water and see this boat owners, stop by, say hello and then punch his fn jaw loose.

This whole thing is messed up from the beginning and has come to a pathetic end. What a sad world we live.

What is great is they can site this case in different suits. So watch what you do all. Makes it hard to justify more than 9 on the boat. I have 8 in my family, another reason I got a 55 was to have a couple extra seats for guests and kids friends.

Iskidaily
06-08-2011, 01:26 PM
insane ... I was just wondering how the driver might see past 12 people to safely avoid obstacles (or people). I know I couldn't do it.

Huskie05
06-08-2011, 01:31 PM
insane ... I was just wondering how the driver might see past 12 people to safely avoid obstacles (or people). I know I couldn't do it.

you could if you are high on pot and drunk off your butt. You see right thru them, and you might actually see dead people, or potentially dead people.

Lars
06-08-2011, 01:37 PM
Wow 12 people up front! He must have taken on A LOT of water when he came around. I'm nervous with 3 people in the bow.

MIskier
06-08-2011, 01:39 PM
I wish I could get 500,000 or 30m for a poor decision that I make. Any person with a 1/32 of a damn brain would say this is unsafe and we need to move to even out the boat. Sounds like temporal lobe birch was as sharp as a bowling ball to begin with and the other stupid sealut deserves her cut too. Anyone in their right mind would have thought that there are too many people up here.

It's totally sad as there is not 12 seats in the bow. This leaving the driver responsible for evening out his crew.

For some reason I believe that if a patrol boat was seeing all of this the story or outcome would be the driver 100% at fault and have some tickets to go along with the fault.

Were there enough vests? (I always ask this when going on someones boat besides mine)
Was everyone under legal limit if not then hand out PI to everyone in violation?
How much empty open containers were on board vs people?

This is bull chit.

Winner winner chicken dinner!!

bobx1
06-08-2011, 02:14 PM
I say spread the pain of the verdict to not only boat owners (prices will go up because of this), but the entire population of the US. MC should immediately sue the USCG for certifying the X45 then at least all taxpayers (some of which sit on the jury) will have to share in this madness.

How in the world can the USCG approve a boat that "has a hole in the front"?

Oh the madness!!!!!!

G-Star
06-08-2011, 02:17 PM
I say spread the pain of the verdict to not only boat owners (prices will go up because of this), but the entire population of the US. MC should immediately sue the USCG for certifying the X45 then at least all taxpayers (some of which sit on the jury) will have to share in this madness.

How in the world can the USCG approve a boat that "has a hole in the front"?

Oh the madness!!!!!!

I'm still wondering if this translates from idiot-lawyerish as "open bow towboat"...


I still can't believe this story. :mad:

aquaman
06-08-2011, 02:25 PM
Some of this can be explained....it happened in California.


The state of no personal responsibility and endless dollars from heaven.
The state is broke(n) finanacially and intellectually.

Maybe MasterCraft should refuse to sell boats there?

MIskier
06-08-2011, 02:33 PM
I'm still wondering if this translates from idiot-lawyerish as "open bow towboat"...


I still can't believe this story. :mad:

I think they were probably referring to the two cutouts in the anchor hatch for the bow ladder.

Plave
06-08-2011, 02:37 PM
We hear law tales like this from the USA all the time and the rest of the world laughs, although this last few years we've had some more stupid cases ourselves, inspired by yours no doubt.

This particular one would have been told to **** off however once they were shown what the boat looked like with 12 people in the bow driven by someone who'd been on the beer.

G-Star
06-08-2011, 03:04 PM
I think they were probably referring to the two cutouts in the anchor hatch for the bow ladder.

I was afraid of that as well... I'd like to see Mr. Lawyer describe exactly how much 2 2" holes contribute to swamping a 24' boat in a fraction of a second.

MIskier
06-08-2011, 03:13 PM
I have a feeling that a lot of evidence from the defense was disallowed by the judge for this verdict to happen. An expert witness could have been put on the stand and showed exactly how and why this happened, even to a bunch of po-high redneck jurors.

JLowder
06-08-2011, 05:15 PM
Some of this can be explained....it happened in California.


The state of no personal responsibility and endless dollars from heaven.
The state is broke(n) finanacially and intellectually.

Maybe MasterCraft should refuse to sell boats there?

What is this "personal responsibility" you speak of? I think I read about it in a book once back in college.

chunter
06-08-2011, 06:51 PM
well maybe if you get enough people in the front the prop will come out of the water and spray the skier like in a jet boat. i live in ca and i am not suprised by this and is there any mention of the race of the people on the boat? and did anyone tell them that this is not the rio grand?

73blue
06-08-2011, 08:12 PM
Whenever yall get selected for jury duty, remember this and don't find an excuse not to do it. Its an inconvenience and its easy to avoid, but you never know when you may hear a case like this (or be involved in one, praying there's one sane person on the jury listening).

Cozmo
06-08-2011, 09:25 PM
Coming from the UK the outcome of this trial I feel is completely ridiculous.

The only people who should be able to review this should have been experts, how can 12 jurors from the the public possibly come to the correct decision??

dvdqrn
06-08-2011, 10:13 PM
So happy to be canadian !!! :) Crazy.....what next.....what next....

kevkan
06-08-2011, 10:26 PM
Take it easy you British and Canadian posters. You all have socialized medical care. Taxpayers would be paying all of these girls medical bills, including the longterm care the girl with the brain injury requires. At least we have doctors that speak English in America.

trickskier
06-08-2011, 10:36 PM
What a severe disappointment. We have removed the notion of personal responsibility.

I couldn't agree more!!!

But remember it was a California jury that found O.J. not guilty too!!!

OHpage21
06-08-2011, 10:50 PM
Gather a jury of 12 people who own boats built by MC competitiors.... see what they come up with. 100% operator error. Guaranteed.

RoverGuy04
06-09-2011, 02:43 AM
As someone who has close ties with individuals involved in this case, I can say that it will be appealed which hopefully will result in a favorable ruling for Mastercraft. The idiocracy is astounding; however, not surprising since it occured in California. The injuries sustained by Bell and Wallenberg are exceptionally unfortunate and certainly should not be minimized in frustration of Mastercraft getting the shaft; however, their injuries are a direct result of boating risks which need to be assumed by parties engaging in said activities. Even after admitting to minimal boating experience, unsafely loading the bow of the boat with his friends, and powerturning to retrieve a rider which ultimately led to the injury of the women, the driver continued to blame the design of the boat. He claimed that if he knew the bow was going to take on so much water through the "bow ladder holes" the accident wouldn't have occured. As a previous X-45 owner I can guarantee that you can not safely seat eleven people in the bow. They would either be stacked on each others laps or sitting on the gunnels of the bow. I can also guarantee that any water taken on through those holes will run directly to the bottom of the hull and back towards the transom. Depending on the size of wake that the X-45 was going over and how low the bow actually was, we all know the bow would have swamped by water going UP and OVER the bow. Since that can occur with any boat it is far less likely to be considered a "design defect" and the case against the X-45 solely would lose strength. It is very frustrating for me that the prosecuting firm is located less than a mile from my house and one of my best friends works directly under Roger Dryer (prosecuting attorney). I can verify that significant evidence brought forth by the Mastercraft's attorney's regarding the hull design of the X-45 was dismissed. The ruling in the case was solely a result of a very uneducated jury. How the prosecutor was able to argue that the bow of the boat swamped within seconds through the bow ladder cover holes escapes me. Typical case of a money hungry prosecutor looking to bring further notoriety to his firm. Despite the way most people probably understood today's ruling, this case is not over...

RoverGuy04
06-09-2011, 03:02 AM
Here's the prosecuting firm's website in case you want to see how they are already announcing their "win" on the homepage...

http://dbbc.com/

Brian B
06-09-2011, 03:27 AM
As someone who has close ties with individuals involved in this case, I can say that it will be appealed which hopefully will result in a favorable ruling for Mastercraft. The idiocracy is astounding; however, not surprising since it occured in California. The injuries sustained by Bell and Wallenberg are exceptionally unfortunate and certainly should not be minimized in frustration of Mastercraft getting the shaft; however, their injuries are a direct result of boating risks which need to be assumed by parties engaging in said activities. Even after admitting to minimal boating experience, unsafely loading the bow of the boat with his friends, and powerturning to retrieve a rider which ultimately led to the injury of the women, the driver continued to blame the design of the boat. He claimed that if he knew the bow was going to take on so much water through the "bow ladder holes" the accident wouldn't have occured. As a previous X-45 owner I can guarantee that you can not safely seat eleven people in the bow. They would either be stacked on each others laps or sitting on the gunnels of the bow. I can also guarantee that any water taken on through those holes will run directly to the bottom of the hull and back towards the transom. Depending on the size of wake that the X-45 was going over and how low the bow actually was, we all know the bow would have swamped by water going UP and OVER the bow. Since that can occur with any boat it is far less likely to be considered a "design defect" and the case against the X-45 solely would lose strength. It is very frustrating for me that the prosecuting firm is located less than a mile from my house and one of my best friends works directly under Roger Dryer (prosecuting attorney). I can verify that significant evidence brought forth by the Mastercraft's attorney's regarding the hull design of the X-45 was dismissed. The ruling in the case was solely a result of a very uneducated jury. How the prosecutor was able to argue that the bow of the boat swamped within seconds through the bow ladder cover holes escapes me. Typical case of a money hungry prosecutor looking to bring further notoriety to his firm. Despite the way most people probably understood today's ruling, this case is not over...

Thanks for the post!

Jim@BAWS
06-09-2011, 07:28 AM
Coming from the UK the outcome of this trial I feel is completely ridiculous.

The only people who should be able to review this should have been experts, how can 12 jurors from the the public possibly come to the correct decision??


That why the Constitution was written...

Jim@BAWS

87MCProstar
06-09-2011, 08:03 AM
oh this poor country, is going to h e l l in a handbag quick. And yet again stupid people ruining it for every normal person out there. boggles my mind

plunk77
06-09-2011, 08:41 AM
anyone else notice on the firm's website it says at the bottom "people over profit"? that doesn't seem like the case here...

plunk77
06-09-2011, 08:44 AM
Here's the prosecuting firm's website in case you want to see how they are already announcing their "win" on the homepage...

http://dbbc.com/

just looking at this pisses me off more than actually hearing about this case the first time

DooSPX
06-09-2011, 08:46 AM
anyone else notice on the firm's website it says at the bottom "people over profit"? that doesn't seem like the case here...

I noticed that too, but I quickly got off the site before I got more angry and threw my new monitor our the window!

ShawnB
06-09-2011, 09:19 AM
Here's the prosecuting firm's website in case you want to see how they are already announcing their "win" on the homepage...

http://dbbc.com/

Wow. I could comment further about it but I would likely get sued for libel and defamation.

thatsmrmastercraft
06-09-2011, 09:31 AM
That why the Constitution was written...

Jim@BAWS

............................

coz
06-09-2011, 11:27 AM
This from the people in Ca. that run the DBW.....guess it don't apply to this case.

...........http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/221686_143176369087099_131342300270506_276768_5423 262_n.jpg

aquaman
06-09-2011, 11:47 AM
The reason these kind of cases continue to kill the economy is because the LAWYERS took home $10 MILLION

the people involved DID NOT get $30 mil.


Everyone one of us pays for these judgements through higher prices on everything.

JimN
06-09-2011, 12:02 PM
Where were the Coast Guard or local Police when this was happening? Looking the other way? At Randy's Donuts, eating a big box of Police Food? Does the load limit sticker mean nothing? What a load of crap!

craig3972
06-09-2011, 12:03 PM
lawyers are scumbags

captain planet
06-09-2011, 12:04 PM
Where were the Coast Guard or local Police when this was happening? Looking the other way? At Randy's Donuts, eating a big box of Police Food? Does the load limit sticker mean nothing? What a load of crap!

Thanks, I needed that laugh!

captain planet
06-09-2011, 12:08 PM
Here's the prosecuting firm's website in case you want to see how they are already announcing their "win" on the homepage...

http://dbbc.com/

So how many comments have been left on their website regardig this do you suppose?

MIskier
06-09-2011, 12:19 PM
So how many comments have been left on their website regardig this do you suppose?

I just found this dirt bags fb page...

scott023
06-09-2011, 12:25 PM
Does anyone else besides me think the competition is calling their insurance companies today to up their limits?

They would if they were smart.

G-Star
06-09-2011, 12:29 PM
So how many comments have been left on their website regardig this do you suppose?

I'm wondering what they're trying to show with the stupid little diagram with the red marks at waterline, and measurements to the rubrail... there is less freeboard at the bow than there is at midships? What a surprise. Towboat manufacturers (other than MC) have had that profile for a long time: Supra, Brendella, Centurion, Tige, etc.

I just don't understand how a firm could proudly post this on their website and claim a victory for deflecting the blame away from the doofus responsible for the safe operation of his boat.

Boats don't hurt people, stupid people hurt people?

DooSPX
06-09-2011, 12:32 PM
Where were the Coast Guard or local Police when this was happening? Looking the other way? At Randy's Donuts, eating a big box of Police Food? Does the load limit sticker mean nothing? What a load of crap!

Thats what I am saying Jim!!!! The Capacity limit plate not mean anything in the courts? what about all the warnings in the manuals and such?
Where is the USCG or the PD???? did the every breathe test the idiot driver??? He admitted he had 4 beers or whatever?

2 would put the average person over the .08 limit.

MIskier
06-09-2011, 12:36 PM
As another poster stated the judge threw out the defenses evidence that the design was tested and not defective. That sort of behavior really isnt unusual for the courts apparently.

Justjoe
06-09-2011, 12:43 PM
The reason these kind of cases continue to kill the economy is because the LAWYERS took home $10 MILLION

the people involved DID NOT get $30 mil.


Everyone one of us pays for these judgements through higher prices on everything.

Yeah....but I'm betting the attorneys will maybe buy cars, take friends to dinner, put gas in their mowers and lawn blowers, maybe get a box of Omaha steaks...

In the terms of economy, spending (even forced spending) is good. This stuff helps the economy.

Just sayin.

ShawnB
06-09-2011, 12:55 PM
Yeah....but I'm betting the attorneys will maybe buy cars, take friends to dinner, put gas in their mowers and lawn blowers, maybe get a box of Omaha steaks...

In the terms of economy, spending (even forced spending) is good. This stuff helps the economy.

Just sayin.

I disagree.

Professions that produce goods and necessary services help the economy. Professions that leech money from people and businesses for "pain and suffering" do not. Who cares what the lawyers spend their 'winnings' on. The net result of lawsuits like this are either higher prices for their product or they cut workers to make up the difference.

Now I realize that pleasure boats are not a necessary industry but the manufacturers add a lot more to the economy than a bunch of ambulance chasers do.

Of course this is just my opinion :rolleyes:

aquaman
06-09-2011, 12:59 PM
I disagree.

Professions that produce goods and necessary services help the economy. Professions that leech money from people and businesses for "pain and suffering" do not. Who cares what the lawyers spend their 'winnings' on. The net result of lawsuits like this are either higher prices for their product or they cut workers to make up the difference.

Now I realize that pleasure boats are not a necessary industry but the manufacturers add a lot more to the economy than a bunch of ambulance chasers do.

Of course this is just my opinion :rolleyes:

Shawn, you GET IT.

Ski-me
06-09-2011, 01:05 PM
lawyers are scumbags

There definitley are some terrible ones out there, but there are a few good ones, too.

I'm thinking Doug is one of the cool ones! :cool:

oxberger
06-09-2011, 01:08 PM
I'd like to say I'm really sorry for what the two ladies went through. That's just horrible. I'd also like to say not all lawyers are scum bags and bottom feeders. There are a few lawyers (some on this site and no I'm not one but have family and friends that are) that adhere to a higher code of ethics than the one in this case. Question for you guys, since he made $10 million off this case, what accessories do you think he'll put on his X-80 since he won't buy a defective X-45?

kevkan
06-09-2011, 01:09 PM
Its not a violation in California to exceed the capacity limit.

"Boat Capacity
Single-hull motorboats less than 20 feet in length which are manufactured after
1972 must display capacity and safe horsepower information. The maximum
weight in persons, gear and motors is offered as a guide to boaters, and should
not be exceeded. It is not a violation of federal or California state law to exceed
recommended maximums. However, other states may cite an operator who
exceeds capacity and horsepower limitations. Some insurance companies will
not insure craft exceeding horsepower maximums and some boat manufacturers
will void any applicable warranties for the same reasons."

As for the alcohol, operator was tested and blew a .04. Not enough to charge him.

"No person 21 years of age or older shall operate any vessel, water skis
or similar device who has .08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in their
blood. A level of at least .05% but less than .08% may be used with other
evidence in determining whether the person was under the influence of
alcohol. A person under 21 years of age or older who has been arrested
for operating a mechanically propelled vessel “under the influence” may
be requested to submit to a chemical test to determine blood-alcohol
content. Refusal may result in increased penalties upon conviction. A
person convicted of operation of vessel while intoxicated could receive
up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail."

MIskier
06-09-2011, 01:34 PM
Yeah....but I'm betting the attorneys will maybe buy cars, take friends to dinner, put gas in their mowers and lawn blowers, maybe get a box of Omaha steaks...

In the terms of economy, spending (even forced spending) is good. This stuff helps the economy.

Just sayin.

No offense, but I strongly disagree, in fact it is that type of thinking that got this country into the trouble it is in today. The people responsible for a tangible object coming to fruition are the ones that make the world go round. It doesnt matter if its a carpenter, or a computer scientist with the latest computer chip, they both use their abilities to produce something to help or at least make people happy, all a lawyer like this one does is leach off someones pain and suffering telling them that all they want is to make them "whole." If this gets appealed and the ruling is upheld figure a conservative estimate of 10% of the judgement goes to the law firm, in my opinion 3+ mil isnt chump change.

Something I always like to tell people when manufacturing is brought up just to illustrate how this country used to be is that during WWII the production lines at Willow Run were building B-24's at the rate of 1 every 53 min( 8,685 planes produced in 408 days). Just food for thought as to the capabilities this country used to have

MIskier
06-09-2011, 01:40 PM
Its not a violation in California to exceed the capacity limit.

"Boat Capacity
Single-hull motorboats less than 20 feet in length which are manufactured after
1972 must display capacity and safe horsepower information. The maximum
weight in persons, gear and motors is offered as a guide to boaters, and should
not be exceeded. It is not a violation of federal or California state law to exceed
recommended maximums. However, other states may cite an operator who
exceeds capacity and horsepower limitations. Some insurance companies will
not insure craft exceeding horsepower maximums and some boat manufacturers
will void any applicable warranties for the same reasons."

As for the alcohol, operator was tested and blew a .04. Not enough to charge him.

"No person 21 years of age or older shall operate any vessel, water skis
or similar device who has .08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in their
blood. A level of at least .05% but less than .08% may be used with other
evidence in determining whether the person was under the influence of
alcohol. A person under 21 years of age or older who has been arrested
for operating a mechanically propelled vessel “under the influence” may
be requested to submit to a chemical test to determine blood-alcohol
content. Refusal may result in increased penalties upon conviction. A
person convicted of operation of vessel while intoxicated could receive
up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail."

X-45 is 24'. Coasties would still have ticketed him if they had pulled him over, and any BAL could have been used to cast reasonable doubt that he was impaired, regardless of that if anyone thinks this guy wasn't recklessly negligent well than I would want to be on their boat either...

kevkan
06-09-2011, 02:07 PM
X-45 is 24'. Coasties would still have ticketed him if they had pulled him over, and any BAL could have been used to cast reasonable doubt that he was impaired, regardless of that if anyone thinks this guy wasn't recklessly negligent well than I would want to be on their boat either...

I don't think you understand. A 24' boat doesn't even REQUIRE a capacity plate. In California its not a violation to exceed it on any boat. The statute is pretty clear that they can't charge you if under .05 BAC. Besides, that "reasonable doubt" would make it hard to convict him.

Now, if he allowed people to ride on the gunwale, that would be a violation. And he was charged with reckless or negligent operation, and pled no contest (guilty). I don't think anyone disputes that.

MIskier
06-09-2011, 02:31 PM
Actually any boat under 26' requires a plate per ABYC regulations, which is the certification body for the pleasure boat industry. I was unaware that California had that law, it is a strictly inforced law in both the states that I reside in MI, and LA.

CantRepeat
06-09-2011, 02:58 PM
It's funny, boat wont get up so lets move 12 people into an area that should have no more then 4 or 6 people. Then lets wonder why it gets swamped by a wake in a 5 mph turn. Then lets top that off by gassing it, because that is a "known" maneuver for a swamped boat, and run the hell over our friends. All the while some laywer who needs a 10 million dollar payout to blame MC and not the idiot behind the wheel.

pram
06-09-2011, 03:44 PM
Some very interesting bits in this article.

http://forums.wakeboarder.com/viewtopic.php?p=1279837&sid=e11647d107950d0f4cd54cf58155f23b

Boat was front loaded, began taking on water. Bow occupants stood up, grabbed windshield, but were swept overboard.

How's that the manufacturers fault?

those darn 45's take water way to easy over the bow IN MY OPINION

scott023
06-09-2011, 03:46 PM
those darn 45's take water way to easy over the bow IN MY OPINION

No doubt, especially when your turn right into your own wake when surfing. I've heard it can go right over the windshield and tower. :D:D:D

east tx skier
06-09-2011, 04:29 PM
I'd like to say I'm really sorry for what the two ladies went through. That's just horrible. I'd also like to say not all lawyers are scum bags and bottom feeders. There are a few lawyers (some on this site and no I'm not one but have family and friends that are) that adhere to a higher code of ethics than the one in this case. Question for you guys, since he made $10 million off this case, what accessories do you think he'll put on his X-80 since he won't buy a defective X-45?

Thanks. I was pretty sure I wasn't a scumbag lawyer. But after reading this thread, I was starting to wonder. :o

/Not in private practice.
//Didn't do personal injury when I was in private practice.
///wife doesn't do personal injury.

DooSPX
06-09-2011, 04:36 PM
Wait, Doug... you're not a lawyer anymore?

scott023
06-09-2011, 04:38 PM
Wait, Doug... you're not a lawyer anymore?

He is......

DooSPX
06-09-2011, 04:41 PM
That's what I thought... but I swear I remember reading something about him not being one anymore, but his wife is... Then that comment...

oh well, none of my business anyway...

thanks scott!

trickskier
06-09-2011, 04:45 PM
Here's the prosecuting firm's website in case you want to see how they are already announcing their "win" on the homepage...

http://dbbc.com/

What a bunch of losers!!!

east tx skier
06-09-2011, 04:46 PM
Wait, Doug... you're not a lawyer anymore?

I'm a lawyer. I haven't been in private practice for over ten years. I'm a judicial appellate lawyer.

scott023
06-09-2011, 04:48 PM
What a bunch of losers!!!

Tell us how you really feel Rick. 8p:D

DooSPX
06-09-2011, 04:50 PM
What a bunch of losers!!!

So TRUE!!!!!!!!

I'm a lawyer. I haven't been in private practice for over ten years. I'm a judicial appellate lawyer.

Got, thanks Doug! Hope all is well with the family.


Tell us how you really feel Rick. 8p:D

HAHAHA!!!

flipper
06-09-2011, 05:35 PM
He is......
A scum bag???

flipper
06-09-2011, 05:36 PM
those darn 45's take water way to easy over the bow IN MY OPINION
I've heard that somewhere. Care to tell us how you heard about that? :D

craig3972
06-09-2011, 05:43 PM
He is......

A scum bag???

Watch what u say , might get sued!

flipper
06-09-2011, 05:46 PM
Watch what u say , might get sued!
Good point

thatsmrmastercraft
06-09-2011, 06:04 PM
Watch what u say , might get sued!

Pockets aren't deep enough.

flipper
06-09-2011, 06:09 PM
Pockets aren't deep enough.
They are deep, just empty

thatsmrmastercraft
06-09-2011, 07:07 PM
They are deep, just empty

Point duly noted.

BROUSSARD
06-09-2011, 07:37 PM
My 190 has no hole in the bow!

FourFourty
06-09-2011, 07:47 PM
MalibuCrew is having a field day with this......so rediculous.

I can say that a few guys over there are smart enough to realize what is what...... The others are like "Obviously the X45 has a serious design flaw cause it dips the front and MC didnt say that you couldnt put twelve people in there!!" ....Idiots!!

The ironic part, is that a few threads down, there is a guy complaining that his two kids cant sit in the front of his VTX because it causes the bow to dip in the water when he turns into his own wake to go back to a downed boarder.... And some of those same guys from the lawsuit thread are sayin "be careful when slowing down and turning, this is normal for these boats"....... LMAO

I get a big kick out of the fact that they always say that MC owners are always being snotty and talkin $hit about Malibus...... Yet there is more threads on that site, today alone, that talk down about MCs, than I have ever seen on TT talkin down on malibus/owners............. in the entire time I have been a member.

kevkan
06-09-2011, 07:48 PM
They picked a good color of boat to emphasize the front being low in the water. With that white top to the hull that boat looks low in the front. You don't suppose they chose a boat with a black bottom and white top just for this effect?

G-Star
06-09-2011, 08:06 PM
They picked a good color of boat to emphasize the front being low in the water. With that white top to the hull that boat looks low in the front. You don't suppose they chose a boat with a black bottom and white top just for this effect?

Could it be??? No, that doesn't sound like something a lawyer would do... :rolleyes:

DooSPX
06-09-2011, 08:22 PM
I noticed that! The picture is so over exposed and blown out, that you can hardly see the white deck. On purpose I'm sure to make it look much lower.

thatsmrmastercraft
06-09-2011, 09:16 PM
I would imagine MC is taking a long hard look at their legal team. A court battle isn't about right and wrong.............it's about winning and losing. This clearly isn't over, as an appeal will hopefully be handled better.

MIskier
06-09-2011, 09:32 PM
They picked a good color of boat to emphasize the front being low in the water. With that white top to the hull that boat looks low in the front. You don't suppose they chose a boat with a black bottom and white top just for this effect?

Thats from the forensic engineering firm that the plaintiffs hired, and they're as big a group of ambulance chasers as the lawyers. ata and associates is the name of the firm.

Lars
06-09-2011, 09:32 PM
Anyone want to pitch in to hire Johnnie Cochran for the appeal?

kevkan
06-09-2011, 09:43 PM
Anyone want to pitch in to hire Johnnie Cochran for the appeal?

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view), Johnnie Cochran is deceased.

I know just what he would say though: If the people won't fit, you must acquit!

Lars
06-09-2011, 10:35 PM
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view), Johnnie Cochran is deceased.

I know just what he would say though: If the people won't fit, you must acquit!


I know just teasin =)

DemolitionMan
06-09-2011, 10:49 PM
Since my 197 says it holds 7 do you think I should put 6 in the bow?

BROUSSARD
06-09-2011, 11:19 PM
Since my 197 says it holds 7 do you think I should put 6 in the bow?

OF COURSE............ HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND.



















:)

plunk77
06-10-2011, 09:43 AM
i rode in the bow of a 197 once by myself and my weight alone made it swamp every time.

driver thought it was funny and kept doing it until i finally decided to move back

i'm talking to a lawyer as we speak. the 197 can't handle 300 pounders. design flaw

PA Prostar
06-10-2011, 11:30 AM
I just checked and my 190 has at least two design flaws. I have no brakes and I can not steer in reverse. I think that's worth $60M since the going rate is $30M for one flaw.

WilliM1940
06-10-2011, 11:34 AM
Think about this. When I was a teenagerback in the mid 70’s you could buy a Piper Cub, Taylorcraft, Luscombe (airplanes) etc. for about $2500. Meatball tries to take off in a Cub one day over a truck parked in the runway, clips the landing gear, plane goes in, seat in cockpit breaks with retaining rail. Big lawsuit against Piper. This and other lawsuits all accumulated in driving Piper, Cessna and Beechcraft out of the private airplane business (they were held responsible for airplane design “flaws” going back to the dawn of flight). Now you have greenies p!ssed off over wakeboard boats, overcrowded lakes and all, is the same thing going to happen to boating? To keep the numbers down, only the privileged few will be able to own.

jdl xstar
06-10-2011, 11:36 AM
I just checked and my 190 has at least two design flaws. I have no brakes and I can not steer in reverse. I think that's worth $60M since the going rate is $30M for one flaw.

Ha! Good one! Lets assemble a class action! :)

Boarder0153
06-10-2011, 01:01 PM
MalibuCrew is having a field day with this......so rediculous.

I can say that a few guys over there are smart enough to realize what is what...... The others are like "Obviously the X45 has a serious design flaw cause it dips the front and MC didnt say that you couldnt put twelve people in there!!" ....Idiots!!

The ironic part, is that a few threads down, there is a guy complaining that his two kids cant sit in the front of his VTX because it causes the bow to dip in the water when he turns into his own wake to go back to a downed boarder.... And some of those same guys from the lawsuit thread are sayin "be careful when slowing down and turning, this is normal for these boats"....... LMAO

I get a big kick out of the fact that they always say that MC owners are always being snotty and talkin $hit about Malibus...... Yet there is more threads on that site, today alone, that talk down about MCs, than I have ever seen on TT talkin down on malibus/owners............. in the entire time I have been a member.

I'm sorry man, I just don't see what you're talking about. The general feel I get from the malibucrew is that they feel the driver is at fault. I'm not saying there isn't a couple crewmembers that are taking it a little far, but anyone I have talked to would be in agreeance with the general population of this site. Nobody should have to tell an avid boater to NOT cram 12 people in the bow of a boat and NOT to hit the throttle when the front of the boat takes a dive (when its loaded as it was) and someone falls overboard. Malibu, Mastercraft, Nautique, etc., doesn't matter, any one of our boats could take a nose dive, it just so happened that the idiot driving was behind an MC. Sucks.

CantRepeat
06-10-2011, 01:32 PM
I'm sorry man, I just don't see what you're talking about. The general feel I get from the malibucrew is that they feel the driver is at fault. I'm not saying there isn't a couple crewmembers that are taking it a little far, but anyone I have talked to would be in agreeance with the general population of this site. Nobody should have to tell an avid boater to NOT cram 12 people in the bow of a boat and NOT to hit the throttle when the front of the boat takes a dive (when its loaded as it was) and someone falls overboard. Malibu, Mastercraft, Nautique, etc., doesn't matter, any one of our boats could take a nose dive, it just so happened that the idiot driving was behind an MC. Sucks.

Excellent first post boarder! It's clear to see it's not a boat issue. It's an operator issue.

Welcome to TT!

FourFourty
06-10-2011, 02:06 PM
I'm sorry man, I just don't see what you're talking about. The general feel I get from the malibucrew is that they feel the driver is at fault. I'm not saying there isn't a couple crewmembers that are taking it a little far, but anyone I have talked to would be in agreeance with the general population of this site. Nobody should have to tell an avid boater to NOT cram 12 people in the bow of a boat and NOT to hit the throttle when the front of the boat takes a dive (when its loaded as it was) and someone falls overboard. Malibu, Mastercraft, Nautique, etc., doesn't matter, any one of our boats could take a nose dive, it just so happened that the idiot driving was behind an MC. Sucks.

I was simply stating that several crew members were blaming the X45 for this incident....Because it dipped the nose, and it shouldnt have. And that I thought it was rediculous that they would post in another thread that chili dipping the nose is normal for any inboard....

The only reason i found that thread was because I googled the MC lawsuit to try to find out more info. The TMC thread popped up, so I read it. Curiousity got the best of me, and I read more threads.

As for the rest of your post, I agree 100%. And I did say that there were crew members that knew what was what. And you are right, it probably is the lions share of them.

Welcome to TT

Kyle
06-10-2011, 02:51 PM
This thread totally pisses me off. The serious lack of judgment of one person will cause everyone else to suffer from his stupidity. We will either get new laws or rules to follow, prices of a mc will raise again to be able to afford this dumb bastards mistake, watersports may be deemed too dangerous and rules of any watersports will be stricter, or some liberal will just make it too hard to go boating.

I wonder if any jury member on this case has ever been on a boat. Someone needs to go find this stupid idiot and punch him right in the lips. He needs to take pics of the two girls he ran over. A before and after pic of each girl and put them on the wall of his bedroom. Then wake up every day and see probably two fine as frog hair girls who he chopped up and disfigured. Then be a man instead of a coward and own up to his stupidity. What a spineless pos for not owning up for his mistake. Once a little puss always a puss.

Ok off my soap box now.


This is a double post as if you google the lawsuit this thread will also post up. I want everyone to read about this spineless little backbiter who needs to own up and be a "MAN" instead of blame others.

02ProstarSammyD
06-10-2011, 03:16 PM
How the hell do you even fit 12 people in the bow? And seriously how is this not common sense? Instead of giving him money they should have stoned him to death on the courthouse steps for murdering the theory of evolution.

Kyle
06-10-2011, 03:23 PM
How the hell do you even fit 12 people in the bow? And seriously how is this not common sense? Instead of giving him money they should have stoned him to death on the courthouse steps for murdering the theory of evolution.

The money went to the girls.

If 1 out of 19 people could not figured out that what was going on was not safe then they all are idiots.

I'm never going to California now for sure. Seems like there are too many people lacking in the smarts department. From the boaters to the jury. Sure hope the whole state is not that way.

02ProstarSammyD
06-10-2011, 03:28 PM
Every single person on that boat deserves a darwin drop kick for not stopping what was happening. Not saying anyone deserved to be thrown into a prop but maybe a simple tiger mauling. And people wonder why I'm such a ***** about behavior when we are riding.

Chris P
06-10-2011, 03:42 PM
This thread totally pisses me off. The serious lack of judgment of one person will cause everyone else to suffer from his stupidity. We will either get new laws or rules to follow, prices of a mc will raise again to be able to afford this dumb bastards mistake, watersports may be deemed too dangerous and rules of any watersports will be stricter, or some liberal will just make it too hard to go boating.

I wonder if any jury member on this case has ever been on a boat. Someone needs to go find this stupid idiot and punch him right in the lips. He needs to take pics of the two girls he ran over. A before and after pic of each girl and put them on the wall of his bedroom. Then wake up every day and see probably two fine as frog hair girls who he chopped up and disfigured. Then be a man instead of a coward and own up to his stupidity. What a spineless pos for not owning up for his mistake. Once a little puss always a puss.

Ok off my soap box now.




This is a double post as if you google the lawsuit this thread will also post up. I want everyone to read about this spineless little backbiter who needs to own up and be a "MAN" instead of blame others.


It's likely that very few if any of the jurors know a damn thing about boating or about water sports at all. The attorneys likely chose the jurors specifically for that reason as anyone with any boating experience or water sports experience would likely not apply any responsibility to MC at all. I feel for the girls who sustained the prop strike however I can't help but be bewildered by the stupidity of the operator of the boat and the stupidity of the passengers.

What I find more perplexing about this is the potential for new regulations and new "safe design features" that may come up in our boats that none of us will care for. Cost is also an issue. I hope MC takes this to task and files any appeal they can file.

Chris P
06-10-2011, 03:45 PM
I'm sorry man, I just don't see what you're talking about. The general feel I get from the malibucrew is that they feel the driver is at fault. I'm not saying there isn't a couple crewmembers that are taking it a little far, but anyone I have talked to would be in agreeance with the general population of this site. Nobody should have to tell an avid boater to NOT cram 12 people in the bow of a boat and NOT to hit the throttle when the front of the boat takes a dive (when its loaded as it was) and someone falls overboard. Malibu, Mastercraft, Nautique, etc., doesn't matter, any one of our boats could take a nose dive, it just so happened that the idiot driving was behind an MC. Sucks.

I agree completely.

pram
06-10-2011, 03:54 PM
What is great is they can site this case in different suits. So watch what you do all. Makes it hard to justify more than 9 on the boat. I have 8 in my family, another reason I got a 55 was to have a couple extra seats for guests and kids friends.

I take it you are not a Trojan Man?

BWB-745-
06-10-2011, 04:00 PM
What I hate about all of this is it will likely lead to new more restrictive legislation, which will only be followed by the people with enough common sense to not need it all while the wallys keep on driving like complete asshats with no regard to others.



Feel bad for the two girls though.

pram
06-10-2011, 04:07 PM
No doubt, especially when your turn right into your own wake when surfing. I've heard it can go right over the windshield and tower. :D:D:D

who wouldathunkit

93Prostar190
06-10-2011, 04:28 PM
I gotta be honest, this is such a disgusting verdict that I must question how good the defense team executed their defense. I try not to second guess people that I don't know, but in this case ... are you kidding me?

I am not an attorney, but it occurs to me that you don't need to be right, just more convincing than the other guy. I certainly don't know all the details of the depositions, witnesses, and other legal data .... but holy %$#$ it just doesn't seem like you should be able to lose this case.

I hope the appellate process brings a better legal team forward for MC. Their name and reputation depends on it. I wonder if they let some local California attorney in the area take the case and they regret the choice. I also argue that beyond MC, this kind of verdict does not help leisure boating in any way.

The plaintiff attorney's have a neato web site and it is clear that they specialize in this kind of ambulance chasing (er I meant to say, Litigation).

I say we should sue California for allowing bad boating practices on their waterways, and further we should sue water in general since we cannot breathe it .... should be an easy case to win.

Surf board builders in Cali, take note, if someone gets hurt off the coast, it will be your fault.

Design flaw? ..... yes ... that just about any idiot can sit behind the wheel, but that does not mean that they are DRIVING the boat.

Let's be safe out there.

93Prostar190
06-10-2011, 04:32 PM
From the Ohio ODNR Boating Guide ..... in the boater Code of Conduct ....

"Properly load your boat."
"Know your boating skil level and abilities."

MIskier
06-10-2011, 05:09 PM
I gotta be honest, this is such a disgusting verdict that I must question how good the defense team executed their defense. I try not to second guess people that I don't know, but in this case ... are you kidding me?

I am not an attorney, but it occurs to me that you don't need to be right, just more convincing than the other guy. I certainly don't know all the details of the depositions, witnesses, and other legal data .... but holy %$#$ it just doesn't seem like you should be able to lose this case.

I hope the appellate process brings a better legal team forward for MC. Their name and reputation depends on it. I wonder if they let some local California attorney in the area take the case and they regret the choice. I also argue that beyond MC, this kind of verdict does not help leisure boating in any way.

The plaintiff attorney's have a neato web site and it is clear that they specialize in this kind of ambulance chasing (er I meant to say, Litigation).

I say we should sue California for allowing bad boating practices on their waterways, and further we should sue water in general since we cannot breathe it .... should be an easy case to win.

Surf board builders in Cali, take note, if someone gets hurt off the coast, it will be your fault.

Design flaw? ..... yes ... that just about any idiot can sit behind the wheel, but that does not mean that they are DRIVING the boat.

Let's be safe out there.

Not uncommon for a judge to not allow the defense to present all of its evidence or witnesses for various reasons. My father has had to serve as a professional witness on behalf of the state of Michigan for various cases over the years. While discussing this case he told me that before taking the stand for the prosecution against one of the prison inmates he had investigated the judge decided to not allow the testimony of my father. Pretty sure that the prosecutors, judge, and my father all have their paychecks coming from the same place, but the judge decided to throw the scumbag prisoner's defense team a bone...just one more example of a broken legal system.

east tx skier
06-10-2011, 05:21 PM
There are any number of reasons some testimony/evidence gets in and some does not. Often times, it is due to procedural requisites that were not followed. It is certainly not something that can be devised from a newspaper article. The appellate courts are quite good at making sure that there is a good reason underlying the trial court's decision making process and, at least my home state, the appellate court writes an opinion on every case that is filed so that anyone can, hopefully, understand why it reached the decision it did.

kevkan
06-10-2011, 06:02 PM
What I hate about all of this is it will likely lead to new more restrictive legislation, which will only be followed by the people with enough common sense to not need it all while the wallys keep on driving like complete asshats with no regard to others.


Restrictive legislation is much more likely to result from the accident itself, not some jury verdict. Obviously, 2 people were seriously hurt in this accident, and that is newsworthy and a concern. Two factors which seem to catch the eye, are the boat was overloaded, and the driver while technically not intoxicated, had consumed alcohol. (Blew a .04) A couple of pieces of legislation I could see would be: a) California making it a crime (violation) to exceed the capacity sticker of the boat; and b) not allow alcohol consumption on boats, or at least not by an operator.

The 2 states I usually boat in already have "a". While I have violated it a time or two, I think most people can live with it, at least as it applies to number of passengers. Ballast might start a debate. Proposition "b" gets a little more controversial. I no longer drink on the boat, but boy did I used to. I allow adult passengers to drink, but they don't drive my boat if they do. I can see both sides of this argument.

kevkan
06-10-2011, 06:20 PM
Perhaps he was so busy fiddling with his "skier down flag" he wasn't watching what was going on in the bow.

rjracin240
06-10-2011, 07:47 PM
What gets me about civil litigation is the fact they pick jurors from our peers, I tell you it amazes me how many people around us have obviously lost so much common sense they cannot see through this BS.
Happy to say that we don’t get too many wally's on here, last one I saw on here was about 4 months ago wanting to make an Ol Prostar loud and go warp speed!!!!

Thanks my fellow TT'ers for giving me a reality at check at the end of the day.

atlfootr
06-11-2011, 09:20 PM
How insane is thisTOTAL BULL****!
What a frigg'n WASTE of our $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ .............

Even the client's Attorney says so!

Attorney: Blame MasterCraft's boat design

CHICO -Though an attorney said he thinks his client erred when driving a boat...

Reading this now makes ME want to call the attorney on Monday and tell him a thing or two ..

And then reading this ...
Duncan said he can accept Dreyer's recommendation that the jury assign 99 percent of the fault to MasterCraft and 1 percent to his client.

Come On!


Duncan thinks MasterCraft should have properly tested the boat before releasing it to consumers without proper warnings or functional design. Montz bought the boat because it was cool-looking and because it was big, Duncan said.

:(

atlfootr
06-11-2011, 09:34 PM
Anyone here on the board know what the actually sitting capacity is on the X-45?
Never mind, I found it myself.

http://www.mastercraft.com/boats/overview/x45 (http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/../boats/overview/x45)

JohnnyB
06-12-2011, 08:08 AM
Another bad verdict fueling the thought that people don't have individual accountability......that is what is killing this country!

scott023
06-13-2011, 09:19 AM
Anyone here on the board know what the actually sitting capacity is on the X-45?
Never mind, I found it myself.

http://www.mastercraft.com/boats/overview/x45 (http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/../boats/overview/x45)

That info was posted about 8 times in this thread.

JimN
06-13-2011, 09:38 AM
I say spread the pain of the verdict to not only boat owners (prices will go up because of this), but the entire population of the US. MC should immediately sue the USCG for certifying the X45 then at least all taxpayers (some of which sit on the jury) will have to share in this madness.

How in the world can the USCG approve a boat that "has a hole in the front"?

Oh the madness!!!!!!


I really hope you aren't serious.

bobx1
06-13-2011, 12:51 PM
I really hope you aren't serious.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment but on the other hand, how can the USCG certify the boat (capacity) and MC in turn gets sued when the boater clearly overloaded it?

I would also like to know the process of the USCG certification/inspection. Do manufacturers have to submit their designs to some central authority (i.e. USCG) for it to be approved or certified or can anyone go out and build a boat that does not adhere to certain standards? If the boat has a "hole" in the front (I am assuming they meant the holes for the ladder), then how does that pass inspection/certification?

I had a boat custom built for me that was used exclusivly for duck hunting and I had to pay the state to come out and inspect it before they would allow me to register it.

Duane D
06-13-2011, 02:10 PM
I say we should sue California for allowing bad boating practices on their waterways, and further we should sue water in general since we cannot breathe it .... should be an easy case to win.

Best quote on this thread so far!

No doubt this is not over and from what I can tell, this was a small county court. Surely the appeals process has already begun.

JimN
06-13-2011, 08:48 PM
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment but on the other hand, how can the USCG certify the boat (capacity) and MC in turn gets sued when the boater clearly overloaded it?

I would also like to know the process of the USCG certification/inspection. Do manufacturers have to submit their designs to some central authority (i.e. USCG) for it to be approved or certified or can anyone go out and build a boat that does not adhere to certain standards? If the boat has a "hole" in the front (I am assuming they meant the holes for the ladder), then how does that pass inspection/certification?

I had a boat custom built for me that was used exclusivly for duck hunting and I had to pay the state to come out and inspect it before they would allow me to register it.

A jury isn't always made up of intelligent people.

SkiDog
06-13-2011, 09:22 PM
A jury isn't always made up of intelligent people.

I'm pretty sure I could guess what made up the majority of this jury, as well as guess which one they voted for for President. IF they even voted.

CantRepeat
06-13-2011, 09:48 PM
A jury isn't always made up of intelligent people.

Well it was a jury of his peers that's for sure. I mean he's adumb@ss and so were 10 out of 12 on the panel!