If a hunter dealer installs an item not recommeded.. now what? My dealer installed a 15HP, at our request (new boat), however never indicated it excceeded the OEM recommendation.. Been working fine for many years, and we anticipate no problems, since the weight is the same as a 9.9hp.. if structural problems develop in the boat well beyond the 5 year period, would there still be recourse? thanks...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Mark Burrows
As a TV attorney...
Although I only play an attorney on TV, I'd say you as the owner of the boat are responsible for maintaining the boat. This includes not cranking up the 15 hp trying to push the boat beyond hull speed. Also, the manufacturer/dealer is generally not liable for damages caused by what the owner does to the boat. For example, if you installed a battery charger (not OEM) and he/she overcharged the batteries resulting in some type of damage to the battery or battery compartment, the owner would be responsible. mark
Although I only play an attorney on TV, I'd say you as the owner of the boat are responsible for maintaining the boat. This includes not cranking up the 15 hp trying to push the boat beyond hull speed. Also, the manufacturer/dealer is generally not liable for damages caused by what the owner does to the boat. For example, if you installed a battery charger (not OEM) and he/she overcharged the batteries resulting in some type of damage to the battery or battery compartment, the owner would be responsible. mark
Okay Mark Perry Mason Esq.
Now counsler, if the manufacturer installs a battery charger and it fries your batteries, who is responsible? The boat mfg?, the battery mfg?, the charger mfg?, the dealer? Rebuttal please<grin>
Now counsler, if the manufacturer installs a battery charger and it fries your batteries, who is responsible? The boat mfg?, the battery mfg?, the charger mfg?, the dealer? Rebuttal please<grin>
J
Jay Hill
What about this scenario, Steve?
Owner's boat on financing so bank actually owns it. Buyer has Hunter authorized/offered option manufactured by third party installed by the dealer. Buyer trips over the installation and breaks his leg by getting it caught in the companionway ladder manufactured by yet another third party and installed at the factory by a Hunter contractor. Whose at fault? I think everyone should sue the owner for BIG bucks. (In this scenario.)
Owner's boat on financing so bank actually owns it. Buyer has Hunter authorized/offered option manufactured by third party installed by the dealer. Buyer trips over the installation and breaks his leg by getting it caught in the companionway ladder manufactured by yet another third party and installed at the factory by a Hunter contractor. Whose at fault? I think everyone should sue the owner for BIG bucks. (In this scenario.)
C
Clarke W.
A good Start
An old joke:What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean -----A good start! How about taking an original tack and being responsible for your own actions.Just how litiginous is this society becoming? I apologise if this comes off as a bit of a rant,no hard feelings i hope
An old joke:What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean -----A good start! How about taking an original tack and being responsible for your own actions.Just how litiginous is this society becoming? I apologise if this comes off as a bit of a rant,no hard feelings i hope
B
Bryan
Litigation = sailing
Ah hem. The correct response is that everyone sues everyone and the lawyers end up with the boats. Don't plan on having any recourse. By having requested, accepted and used the motor without objection for many years when your knew (or "should have known") that it was larger than the recommended hp, you probably have waived any claim you might have had. Plus the statute of limitations may have run, which would bar a lawsuit. Of course, the law varies in different jurisdictions and the above is not intended to be legal advice nor should you rely on it as such, and you should consult an attorney about this issue. Which will hasten the result in paragraph 1, supra.
Ah hem. The correct response is that everyone sues everyone and the lawyers end up with the boats. Don't plan on having any recourse. By having requested, accepted and used the motor without objection for many years when your knew (or "should have known") that it was larger than the recommended hp, you probably have waived any claim you might have had. Plus the statute of limitations may have run, which would bar a lawsuit. Of course, the law varies in different jurisdictions and the above is not intended to be legal advice nor should you rely on it as such, and you should consult an attorney about this issue. Which will hasten the result in paragraph 1, supra.
J
John Q Public
what the @#$%
That's what is wrong with the world today everyone wants to blame someone else for there mistakes---you made the decession live with it. Sailing is about adventure making coices and taking chances. PS I will be contacting you if I develope any eye or hand ailments as a result of my decision to respond to your post.
That's what is wrong with the world today everyone wants to blame someone else for there mistakes---you made the decession live with it. Sailing is about adventure making coices and taking chances. PS I will be contacting you if I develope any eye or hand ailments as a result of my decision to respond to your post.
M
Michael Cohn
Get Over It
These people that write about "take personal responsibility" and the like are a pain sometimes. Occasionally they are correct, but they seem to apply their simple logic to almost every situation, as if nobody has any fault except victims. In this particular case, you were entitled to rely on the dealer as an "expert" in this situation, and the dealer had a duty to not install anything that could harm you or your boat, despite your requests, without at least giving you warning. Since the dealer presumably had a fiduciary relationship with you, his duty to you was increased, and your reliance on his representations was justified. Having said that, now that you KNOW that the engine may be too large, you have a duty to investigate (probably by calling the factory) whether or not the engine really can or might cause a problem. If you are told that it can, then you can decide whether or not to remove and replace it. You can't just leave the thng in place and decide to sue the dealer if anything goes wrong. Engine weight may not be the only factor. This IS NOT legal advice. You should consult a qualified attorney for any and all legal advice in this or any other matter. MC
These people that write about "take personal responsibility" and the like are a pain sometimes. Occasionally they are correct, but they seem to apply their simple logic to almost every situation, as if nobody has any fault except victims. In this particular case, you were entitled to rely on the dealer as an "expert" in this situation, and the dealer had a duty to not install anything that could harm you or your boat, despite your requests, without at least giving you warning. Since the dealer presumably had a fiduciary relationship with you, his duty to you was increased, and your reliance on his representations was justified. Having said that, now that you KNOW that the engine may be too large, you have a duty to investigate (probably by calling the factory) whether or not the engine really can or might cause a problem. If you are told that it can, then you can decide whether or not to remove and replace it. You can't just leave the thng in place and decide to sue the dealer if anything goes wrong. Engine weight may not be the only factor. This IS NOT legal advice. You should consult a qualified attorney for any and all legal advice in this or any other matter. MC
M
Mark Burrows
Burning question
With respect to the what if question, if the boat owner charging the battery overcharged the battery, i.e. did not monitor the charger, I would suspect that the owner would be responsible for not exercising ordinary care. If the owner plugged in power cord and the charger immediately caught fire, a n investigation to the cause would be required. Obviously liability questions are complex. Mark PS Mchael Cohen: What type of law do you practice?
With respect to the what if question, if the boat owner charging the battery overcharged the battery, i.e. did not monitor the charger, I would suspect that the owner would be responsible for not exercising ordinary care. If the owner plugged in power cord and the charger immediately caught fire, a n investigation to the cause would be required. Obviously liability questions are complex. Mark PS Mchael Cohen: What type of law do you practice?
R
Russ King
2 More Cents
There are consumer protection laws in many states and in Canada. IF something goes wrong, you may have recourse through those laws. If you are really concerned about the 15 hp motor, send a letter to the dealer. Explain your concerns, and ask them to respond. If they don't reply in writing, ask them to send you a reply by letter. If they refuse, send the letter again, with a copy to Hunter (and the circumstances). A good dealer will either reassure you (i.e., "A 15 Hp motor is a popular choice among Hunter 26 owners"), or arrange to exchange the motor for a smaller one, probably without ever admitting liability. (Such a letter would be something like "Since we believe in maintaining good customer relations, we can offer ..."). If the back end of your boat does fall off because the motor is too powerful (or the transom rots out), the response to your letter would be useful. Personally, I think you're ok with the 15 Hp motor. If trouble does happen, there should be ample warning (vibration, leaks, etc.). And as several others have pointed out, you have some responsibility to inspect and maintain your boat.
There are consumer protection laws in many states and in Canada. IF something goes wrong, you may have recourse through those laws. If you are really concerned about the 15 hp motor, send a letter to the dealer. Explain your concerns, and ask them to respond. If they don't reply in writing, ask them to send you a reply by letter. If they refuse, send the letter again, with a copy to Hunter (and the circumstances). A good dealer will either reassure you (i.e., "A 15 Hp motor is a popular choice among Hunter 26 owners"), or arrange to exchange the motor for a smaller one, probably without ever admitting liability. (Such a letter would be something like "Since we believe in maintaining good customer relations, we can offer ..."). If the back end of your boat does fall off because the motor is too powerful (or the transom rots out), the response to your letter would be useful. Personally, I think you're ok with the 15 Hp motor. If trouble does happen, there should be ample warning (vibration, leaks, etc.). And as several others have pointed out, you have some responsibility to inspect and maintain your boat.
T
terry dornan
OF COURSE NOT
Accountants Count, Engineers Figure and Lawyers_______________ well I am not sure what Lawyers do. I would guess spin the question to an issue of liability, and possibly generate innuendoes of concern, real or imagined. This string is funny, it has decided there must be an error in judgment by someone. The marina, the owner, the dealer, and maybe the builder. This predicated by a specification (likely reviewed and edited by a ? _ You got it- LAWYER) that expresses a limitation without defining intent. Was the limitation developed as a result of a balance calculation, based on maximum known weights of available engines, a likely design consideration. From an engineering perspective, is 5.2 additional horsepower of an engine within the weight limitations of the boat causing any problem. Will it set up stress cracks and crush the stern allowing the engine to tear through the boat like a Tasmanian Devil. Is the 5 additional hp capable of causing the boat to plain and generating bow crushing forces leading to the demise of the hull. The answer to the above is NO, and the proof in the doing. The owner says that he has had no problem to date, and he will not have a problem. BUT, and this is a big BUT. The question was " if structural problems develop in the boat well beyond the 5 year period, would there still be recourse? " The answer is OF COURSE NOT!. The worst lawyer in the world would be able to argue the case in favor of the builder, dealer and anyone else. The warrantee period and horsepower limitation were exceeded, the dealer was only following the demands of the buyer when he installed the engine. And every entity involved has the fine print, the liability insurance, and insurance supplied legal assistance, to protect themselves. terry
Accountants Count, Engineers Figure and Lawyers_______________ well I am not sure what Lawyers do. I would guess spin the question to an issue of liability, and possibly generate innuendoes of concern, real or imagined. This string is funny, it has decided there must be an error in judgment by someone. The marina, the owner, the dealer, and maybe the builder. This predicated by a specification (likely reviewed and edited by a ? _ You got it- LAWYER) that expresses a limitation without defining intent. Was the limitation developed as a result of a balance calculation, based on maximum known weights of available engines, a likely design consideration. From an engineering perspective, is 5.2 additional horsepower of an engine within the weight limitations of the boat causing any problem. Will it set up stress cracks and crush the stern allowing the engine to tear through the boat like a Tasmanian Devil. Is the 5 additional hp capable of causing the boat to plain and generating bow crushing forces leading to the demise of the hull. The answer to the above is NO, and the proof in the doing. The owner says that he has had no problem to date, and he will not have a problem. BUT, and this is a big BUT. The question was " if structural problems develop in the boat well beyond the 5 year period, would there still be recourse? " The answer is OF COURSE NOT!. The worst lawyer in the world would be able to argue the case in favor of the builder, dealer and anyone else. The warrantee period and horsepower limitation were exceeded, the dealer was only following the demands of the buyer when he installed the engine. And every entity involved has the fine print, the liability insurance, and insurance supplied legal assistance, to protect themselves. terry
R
Russ King
It's not that simple, Terry
Consumer protection laws do protect a customer long after a warranty period has expired. The Chevrolet Corvair debacle (read "Unsafe at Any Speed" if you're interested in the details) lead to some pretty tough consumer protection laws. Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc., spend millions of dollars on "voluntary" vehicle recalls to fix/adjust vehicles long past warranty. Why? Usually because they already lost a court case, and so it becomes cheaper to fix than be nailed with a class action suit. And the recent lawsuits against the tobacco companies are another example where the time element (an expiry date)was not particularly relevant. (Do not smoke, it voids your body's warranty). If, for the sake of argument, Steve's transom rotted out after 6 years, he could take Hunter and the dealer to court. Steve would need an expert witness (a marine surveyor, for example) who could testify that if the transom was rotted after 6 years, the problem (rot) had to exist during the warranty period. Under the consumer protection laws, Steve would have a good chance of getting the transom repaired, at no charge. Something similar has happened (and is happening) with automotive factory paint jobs that flaked off years after the warranty period expired. (BTW, I'm not a lawyer. Not even on TV. I'm not looking for business).
Consumer protection laws do protect a customer long after a warranty period has expired. The Chevrolet Corvair debacle (read "Unsafe at Any Speed" if you're interested in the details) lead to some pretty tough consumer protection laws. Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc., spend millions of dollars on "voluntary" vehicle recalls to fix/adjust vehicles long past warranty. Why? Usually because they already lost a court case, and so it becomes cheaper to fix than be nailed with a class action suit. And the recent lawsuits against the tobacco companies are another example where the time element (an expiry date)was not particularly relevant. (Do not smoke, it voids your body's warranty). If, for the sake of argument, Steve's transom rotted out after 6 years, he could take Hunter and the dealer to court. Steve would need an expert witness (a marine surveyor, for example) who could testify that if the transom was rotted after 6 years, the problem (rot) had to exist during the warranty period. Under the consumer protection laws, Steve would have a good chance of getting the transom repaired, at no charge. Something similar has happened (and is happening) with automotive factory paint jobs that flaked off years after the warranty period expired. (BTW, I'm not a lawyer. Not even on TV. I'm not looking for business).
T
ted
stay home
God Bless America, only in the good ol USA can you get rich off your stupidity, I think there are a few individuals on this site that shouldnt leave U.S waters, they might make a mistake and have to take responsibility for themselves.
God Bless America, only in the good ol USA can you get rich off your stupidity, I think there are a few individuals on this site that shouldnt leave U.S waters, they might make a mistake and have to take responsibility for themselves.
Actually Steve..
...if you are worried about this, I would suggest one of two options. 1. Sell your 15hp engine and purchase a 9.9hp. You will probably be able to sell your engine for what a new 9.9 will cost. 2. Reinforce the transom. By glassing a large piece of marine ply on the inside of the transom to distribute the additional load. This will probably take care of the additional HP and torque that this engine may put on the hull. (of course with this option you are admitting that you may have a problem and void any warranty) If you are *really* concerned about this go to option #1.
...if you are worried about this, I would suggest one of two options. 1. Sell your 15hp engine and purchase a 9.9hp. You will probably be able to sell your engine for what a new 9.9 will cost. 2. Reinforce the transom. By glassing a large piece of marine ply on the inside of the transom to distribute the additional load. This will probably take care of the additional HP and torque that this engine may put on the hull. (of course with this option you are admitting that you may have a problem and void any warranty) If you are *really* concerned about this go to option #1.
J
Jay Hill
Nothing Makes the Blood Boil...
...like a good ol' discussion about lawyers, the law, and personal responsibility. In my limited experience it is better to ensure (or insure) that one has not caused the need for a lawyer by making a prudent, educated, and prepared decision rather than trying to determine what action would be taken if I don't make a prudent, educated, and prepared decision ahead of time. The same applies to everyday life. Remember the McDonald's coffee spill? Personally, I think the judge should be removed for awarding the gigantic sum of money to the "victim" who burned herself with the coffee. Wouldn't it have been more prudent to leave the lid on the coffee cup? A small decision that could have saved millions of dollars. I'm also reminded of a "story" I heard when living in California that created the need for the Deep Pocket Law which limits the amount of suing that can be done. A lady in a Volkswagen bug was coming to a T intersection downhill to a stop sign. She was unable to stop when her breaks failed. She went through the intersection, and if I remember correctly, did not cause any harm or danger to any other motorists; she was the only one involved in the accident. She went across the street, jumped the curb, and hit a lightpost which then fell on her car. The only injury she sustained was a slight cut. She sued the manufacturer of the break pads, the maintenance shop that installed them, the city for not having high enough curbs, the lightpost manufacturer for poor or weak design, the contractor that installed the lightpost, and one other I can't recall. I don't think she won the case, but she wasted thousands of hours of people's time in court trying to convince everybody it was everybody else's fault. It turned out that the breaks were extremely overdue for replacement. Had she done the proper maintenance, she would not have had the accident. All the companies counter-sued afterwards for wasted time and expenses. The Moral of this Story? My Uncle Murphey says, if something can possibly cause a problem, it probably will. I'd put the 15hp up for sale and buy the recommended motor; the entire story would then be a mute point and you would not have the least bit of concern. "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong"
...like a good ol' discussion about lawyers, the law, and personal responsibility. In my limited experience it is better to ensure (or insure) that one has not caused the need for a lawyer by making a prudent, educated, and prepared decision rather than trying to determine what action would be taken if I don't make a prudent, educated, and prepared decision ahead of time. The same applies to everyday life. Remember the McDonald's coffee spill? Personally, I think the judge should be removed for awarding the gigantic sum of money to the "victim" who burned herself with the coffee. Wouldn't it have been more prudent to leave the lid on the coffee cup? A small decision that could have saved millions of dollars. I'm also reminded of a "story" I heard when living in California that created the need for the Deep Pocket Law which limits the amount of suing that can be done. A lady in a Volkswagen bug was coming to a T intersection downhill to a stop sign. She was unable to stop when her breaks failed. She went through the intersection, and if I remember correctly, did not cause any harm or danger to any other motorists; she was the only one involved in the accident. She went across the street, jumped the curb, and hit a lightpost which then fell on her car. The only injury she sustained was a slight cut. She sued the manufacturer of the break pads, the maintenance shop that installed them, the city for not having high enough curbs, the lightpost manufacturer for poor or weak design, the contractor that installed the lightpost, and one other I can't recall. I don't think she won the case, but she wasted thousands of hours of people's time in court trying to convince everybody it was everybody else's fault. It turned out that the breaks were extremely overdue for replacement. Had she done the proper maintenance, she would not have had the accident. All the companies counter-sued afterwards for wasted time and expenses. The Moral of this Story? My Uncle Murphey says, if something can possibly cause a problem, it probably will. I'd put the 15hp up for sale and buy the recommended motor; the entire story would then be a mute point and you would not have the least bit of concern. "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong"
G
Gregory Stebbins
A question...
Sense this thing is still ongoing, I’ve got a question. How can there be civil liability without criminal intent? It seems a little uncivilized to me. Greg
Sense this thing is still ongoing, I’ve got a question. How can there be civil liability without criminal intent? It seems a little uncivilized to me. Greg
E
Eric
Too simple?
Why not just use 3/4 throttle for max rpm since motor weighs the same? Probably 9.9 hp means that is as much motor you need to reach hull speed. Anything else overkill. I would ask dealer to change out if too worried. I would't be if it was me. There is a initial expenditure which I think is the real issue. Dealer made more $ on the 15, or he just had one in stock.
Why not just use 3/4 throttle for max rpm since motor weighs the same? Probably 9.9 hp means that is as much motor you need to reach hull speed. Anything else overkill. I would ask dealer to change out if too worried. I would't be if it was me. There is a initial expenditure which I think is the real issue. Dealer made more $ on the 15, or he just had one in stock.
J
Jay Hill
Greg,
Even *I* seem a little uncivilized to me. It's a sailor thing; I have no intent on being liable for civility or criminals. Same thing?
Even *I* seem a little uncivilized to me. It's a sailor thing; I have no intent on being liable for civility or criminals. Same thing?
R
Rick Webb
What is the limiter
Is the weight of the engine or the thrust produced by it the limiting factor? If it is the weight swung onto the transom and the 15 weighs the same as the 9.9 no big deal if it is the force applied to the transom by the forward thrust (which I suspect is not the issue) then there maybe some preventative measure to be taken. Now if there is a problem somewhere down the line and the owner has already expressed a concern publicly I would imagine he would be SOL in court not to mention the ridicule that should be brought upon a plaintiff for raising such a frivolous case, the lawyer representing the plaintiff should just be shot right on the spot no questions no appeals boom right where he stands.
Is the weight of the engine or the thrust produced by it the limiting factor? If it is the weight swung onto the transom and the 15 weighs the same as the 9.9 no big deal if it is the force applied to the transom by the forward thrust (which I suspect is not the issue) then there maybe some preventative measure to be taken. Now if there is a problem somewhere down the line and the owner has already expressed a concern publicly I would imagine he would be SOL in court not to mention the ridicule that should be brought upon a plaintiff for raising such a frivolous case, the lawyer representing the plaintiff should just be shot right on the spot no questions no appeals boom right where he stands.
Greg, Civil without Criminal?
Greg: I am not sure about this either. Maybe we should ask OJ how this could happen?
Greg: I am not sure about this either. Maybe we should ask OJ how this could happen?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.