DECEMBER SOUND OFF:<br />This week the Supreme Court opened the door for boating accident lawsuits<br />when it ruled that a federal law does not protect manufacturers from being<br />sued in state court. The justices were unanimous in their decision that a<br />widower could sue Mercury Marine over the 1995 death of his wife, who was<br />killed in Tennessee after she fell off a speedboat and into the propeller.<br />The widower claimed the motor was defective and that Mercury Marine should<br />have installed a propeller guard, although the installation is not a federal<br />requirement. What do you think?<br /><br />Email us your answer at
customercare@marisafe.com<br /><mailto:customercare@marisafe.com?subject=December Sound Off> with "December<br />Sound Off" in the subject line. If we publish your comments, you'll receive<br />a classy MariSafe waterproof safe with lanyard for safekeeping your keys,<br />license, credit cards, cash, etc. while you boat, snorkel, swim or ski.<br /><br />Hi,<br />I just wanted to comment on the lawsuit against Mercury Marine. Whereas<br />propeller guards may help reduce incidents of injury, I fail to see why<br />Mercury Marine is liable. To me, the #1 reason for boating-related injury<br />or death is stupidity on the part of the owner/operator. No mater how many<br />safety devices are installed or protective measures are taken to try and<br />protect boaters, some clever moron will figure out a way to injure or kill<br />him (or her) self, or someone else. Bottom line is that stupid kills. No<br />number of lawsuits will change that fact. For the lawsuit mentioned above,<br />my question to the widower would be, "How did your wife come to fall into<br />the water in the first place?" If it was from a boat's wake, sue the boat<br />owner that caused the wake. If it was from the wife not sitting down, sue<br />the boat manufacturer for not installing seatbelts (I'm being silly). How<br />about suing the lake for causing the widower and his late wife to be boating<br />there in the first place (now I'm being ridiculous...)?<br />Lawsuits are getting way out of hand - especially those that are brought on<br />due to the plaintiff's behavior. This lawsuit stinks of the same thing:<br />"I'm sorry your honor, but I'm stupid (or I did something stupid). I blame<br />the Mercury Marine company because they knew I was stupid, but didn't do<br />everything they could to protect my wife from my stupidity..." Why can't<br />we, as Americans and consumers, put a stop to all these type of lawsuits by<br />enacting a "stupid" law? We should give the judges the power to tell<br />people, "I'm sorry that you are stupid, did something stupid, or are stupid<br />enough not to know you were doing something stupid at the time, but the<br />company that made the item that you did something stupid with is not liable<br />for your stupidity. Case dismissed - and try not to do anything stupid on<br />your way home..."<br />Nothing can be 100% idiot-proof, so why do we allow idiots to do something<br />stupid and then pay them for their stupidity? If you think about it, if we<br />stop paying the idiots for being/doing stupid, we might reduce the number of<br />stupid things stupid people do? The idiots might realize that they can't<br />sue because they are stupid and therefore just might be more careful and<br />actually THINK about what they are doing. Of course the natural law of<br />selection continues to effectively work when idiots do something really<br />stupid that results in their demise, but why make someone else pay for their<br />stupidity? Our laws are in place to protect the innocent, not the stupid.<br />Thank you for allowing me to vent - I hate stupidity (especially when that<br />stupidity costs me in time or money - or both...)
