Who's at fault?

[ronc4424]

Laconia marina sued after explosion
By BEA LEWIS | Mar 13, 2015

LACONIA — A Bay State man who was severely injured when the personal watercraft he was trying to start exploded on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2013 has filed a lawsuit claiming the marina he hired to repair it was negligent.

Steven Mitton, then 56, of 53 Gould Ave., Andover, Massachusetts, and his 8-year-old niece, a passenger, were both thrown from the red 1999 GSX Sea-Doo when the incident occurred near Smithwood Point/Deepwood Lodges in Moultonborough on Aug. 18.

Mitton suffered a fractured pelvis and his passenger a head laceration. They were initially taken by ambulance to Lakes Region General Hospital and later transferred to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The suit filed Thursday in Belknap County Superior Court alleges that Mitton hired Irwin Marine of Laconia to make repairs on the early model watercraft the month before the incident and that as part of the work a drive starter and an exhaust gasket kit were installed.

Attorney Philip Kalil of Derry, who filed the negligence suit on behalf of Mitton and Mitton’s wife, Madelyn, claims the injured man gave “full consent” to the marina and its employees to operate the craft for the purpose of testing, inspection or delivery in connection with the repairs.

Kalil asserts that marina staff had told Mitton that the boat was fit for operation on or before the day he tried to start it and it exploded causing him severe, permanent and life-threatening injuries.

The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges that the marina and its staff were negligent and that they should have known of the dangerous or otherwise harmful condition that caused Mitton to be injured by the malfunction.

Because of an alleged failure to properly perform the repairs and or test and inspect it, Kalil asserts that Mitton has suffered emotional, psychological and physical harm, lost wages and earning capacity and medical expenses past and into the indefinite future.

As a result of Mitton’s injuries, the suit further claims, that Mitton’s wife has suffered the loss of her husband’s society, companionship, affection, support, spousal advice and consortium.

Court rules give the plaintiff’s until April 26 to serve Irwin Corporation, doing business as Irwin Marine notice of the suit.

The explosion of a 1996 Sea-Doo GSX in August 2008 on the California side of Lake Havasu previously sparked a lawsuit alleging that the popular watercraft manufacturer hid defects that it should have known could result in an accident.

Carlos Fandino, of Castaic, California, filed suit against Dow Chemical after it assumed ownership of Wedco Molded Products that produced molded polyurethane products exclusively in Canada, including gas tanks and gas tank filler necks sold to Bombardier, Inc.

Fandino and eight other people were injured when the watercraft exploded. Attorney Brian Panish of Los Angeles, who represented Fandino, alleged that the Canadian manufacturer, Bombardier, ignored and later concealed from the public and federal officials evidence of cracks in its vehicles’ fuel tank systems’ filler necks. They claimed four explosions have taken place after raw fuel or vapor entered the engine compartments as a result of the defect.

The company has issued three recalls to replace faulty fuel tanks in different models since 1997 – but not the model Fandino or Mitton were using.

A Los Angeles court ultimately derailed Fandino’s product liability claim and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision finding that a foreign company was not subject to jurisdiction in California as a result of placing goods in steam of commerce in Canada with knowledge that some would end up in finished products in California

http://thecitizen.villagesoup.com/p/...losion/1317264

[thinkxingu]

I can't see anything in this article that suggests negligence as it doesn't confirm if Irwin tested, without issue, the repair. Also, there is no suggestion that the repair was identified as the source of the problem (warnings of needing to fill up and vent PWCs are all over the boating handbook). There's also a question of timing--I'm not convinced a month after is too long, but I always wonder what could have changed in that time.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

I can't see anything in this article that suggests negligence as it doesn't confirm if Irwin tested, without issue, the repair. Also, there is no suggestion that the repair was identified as the source of the problem (warnings of needing to fill up and vent PWCs are all over the boating handbook). There's also a question of timing--I'm not convinced a month after is too long, but I always wonder what could have changed in that time.

Agreed, but that makes too much sense!! I figure there will be settlement, not a trial. I am sure what happens, litigate or settle, is out of Irwin's hands.

[dickiej]

85% of all civil suits are settled without going to trial......I suspect the same will happen here.....the "smoking gun" is typically known manufacturers defects that are purposely not corrected because of cost. Remember the Ford Pinto? Ford actuaries actually figured it was cheaper to pay the wrongful death suits than fix the problem! You gotta love corporate America, eh?

[MAXUM]

Article is way to vague as to the evidence that has been collected thus far. The ultimate burden is on the plaintiffs to make the case but the article doesn't suggest exactly what proof they have of negligence on Irwin's part. If Irwin repaired it, and it was in good running order when it left, who's to say something didn't happen after it left Irwin's possession that caused this to occur.

Looks like they have the right gold digging lawyers on this though. I can only imagine if they can put together such a BS list of damages the amount of money they must be asking for is equally insane.

[SIKSUKR]

I got to say I'm always a little nervous starting mine after its sitting for a while. It seems to always have some gas vapor smell even after opening the engine compartment to vent a little before starting. Always wondered why there wasn't a small blower on these to vent prior to starting.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I got to say I'm always a little nervous starting mine after its sitting for a while. It seems to always have some gas vapor smell even after opening the engine compartment to vent a little before starting. Always wondered why there wasn't a small blower on these to vent prior to starting.

You're not the only one... I typically make the excuse that I want to check the oil and pop the seat, check the oil etc.... I am also very diligent while looking into the compartment... making sure that it is either dry, or the very little water in the bilge, and if there is water in the bilge I make dam sure I see no evidence of petroleum contamination...

Looking at my 2008, setup it would seem very easy to put a small blower in.... just one of many projects I will someday fit in...

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Agreed, but that makes too much sense!! I figure there will be settlement, not a trial. I am sure what happens, litigate or settle, is out of Irwin's hands.

Sense, you expect lawyers actions to make sense??? Out of court settlements in my opinion are why so many of these cases come up.... because it is far cheaper sometime for bigger business and especially corporations to settle, rather then paying huge lawyer fee to fight...

[ITD]

Have 2 seadoos, a 2000 and a 2003, both fuel injected and I never smell gasoline, in or out of the bilge, never.

[jetskier]

The fuel system for PWCs is essentially sealed and there should not be an accumulation of fumes in the bilge. It is not clear why there were fumes in the bilge of this particular PWC. It is possible that the technician was negligent, there was a leak of some sort in the fuel system, or fuel was spilled into the bilge.

That all being said, opening up the engine compartment and doing a quick inspection prior to riding is always a good idea. Personally, I have never smelled fumes in the bilge of any of my PWCs.

Jetskier

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by jetskier

The fuel system for PWCs is essentially sealed and there should not be an accumulation of fumes in the bilge. It is not clear why there were fumes in the bilge of this particular PWC. It is possible that the technician was negligent, there was a leak of some sort in the fuel system, or fuel was spilled into the bilge.

That all being said, opening up the engine compartment and doing a quick inspection prior to riding is always a good idea. Personally, I have never smelled fumes in the bilge of any of my PWCs.

Jetskier

I agree that the system should be closed. But gaskets, hoses etc. do all age... With a new Jet Ski I would worry much about this type of issue. But with an older Jet Ski, you do have to exercise some caution... just like you do with any motorized vehicle..... My need to inspect things, is simply that, maintaining the Jet Ski and doing periodic inspections looking for problems, before they get bad enough to be an issue..

Now back to the topic of this thread... Could Irwin have been negligent, certainly.... could the owner have been more diligent possibly, but there really isn't enough information in the article to be sure. Maybe this guy did check the Jet-Ski out before using, and through out the day the situation and conditions built up... in that cause where is the liability... I may inspect my jetski once a weekend... I wouldn't check it constantly, as I am not supposed to need to do so, because of the closed system.

The question this threads posses for me, is when is an accident just an accident... in this day and age attys get involved a look for an avenue to get the victim money. Occasionally this is justified, sometimes it is not... and most often there is a huge grey area.... This case seems to have a lot of grey area too me... time will tell.....