SEA DOO Water Enema leads to suit

[shawn alladio]

Sea-Doo water enema leads to suit

8/6/2008 7:39 PM
By David Yates

ORANGE - Just a few weeks ago, Megan Norris was riding on a Sea-Doo when she slipped off the rear of the watercraft directly into the path of the water thrust by the jet pump, which "penetrated her orifices," court papers say.

Claiming the Sea-Doo was negligently designed, Norris filed suit against Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. on July 23 in Orange County District Court.

In her suit, Norris says that on June 29 she was riding the watercraft with three of her friends. Norris was seated last near the craft's rear, court papers say.

"As the Sea-Doo was being operated in a manner wholly consistent with its intended use, Norris slipped off the rear of the watercraft directly into the path of the water thrust by the jet pump," the suit says. "The high-pressure stream of water penetrated her orifices causing massive, mutilating injuries to her lower abdomen."

Court documents fail to say where the incident occurred.

The suit continues by alleging Bombardier Recreational negligently designed, manufactured and placed its product into the stream of commerce and that the company fraudulently knew its product was dangerous but chose to conceal the information.

Norris says the injury "caused great shock to her nervous system." She is suing for past and future mental anguish, impairment and loss of enjoyment of life."

Norris is also suing for punitive damages, claiming Bombardier Recreational acted with a complete disregard for the welfare of others.

She is represented by the Law Offices of Brian N. Mazzola.

The case has been assigned to Judge Buddy Hahn of the 260th Judicial District.

Case No. D-080288-c



____________________

I wonder if she was not wearing the proper protective apparel that the manufacturer's recommend to avoid this and if the owner explained to her about falls overboard and the jet stream thrust or anything else that may have helped them all avoid this?

The warning lables clearly state this, unless someone removed or altered/covered them. Driving a boat is serious business, staying on the boat is important, falling on board and overboard are things that people should do their best to avoid such as:
Safe Speed riding with passengers on board or not.
Knowing how a jet propulsion system functions and operates on a PWC
Comprehension of off throttle steering
Not overloading their boat
Not riding about the water conditions with weight on board

It is so important to take boating seriously. It is a responsibility, the choices we make create waves that affect our entire community...
http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/214074-sea-doo-water-enema-leads-to-suit

[KEYZBUM]

BS
that like me suing Marlboro for my house burning down because I left a cig. in an ashtray that falls on the carpet and up it goes,,,,
OOOH wait that did happen ,they lost, now make different paper for cigs in NEW YORK
ok so who is suing Bud for putting out a product they knew would cause my belly to get larger,now i need new pants ,,CAN I GET BUD TO PAY FOR THEM
anybody ever suied a motercycle mfr. for there road rash after falling off a machine that was made without seatbelts
COME ON PEOPLE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELFS
mattman

[amharms]

Aside from making sure my passengers can reboard in deep water, another thing I tell them is, if they're about to fall off/are falling off, make some noise so I know to throttle down...

'Course, if you hit the water wrong, you'll get "cleaned out" regardless of the disposition of the pump. Guess then she'd just sue the lake.

[thesepaperwings]

Are you sure it was a LRV? They might have been riding 4 up on a 3 seater and she fell off because there wasn't enough room.

[Rocky_Road]

This is the exact same scenerio that helped Polaris decide to give up the PWC trade.

They lost the suit...even though the judge ruled that Polaris was not making any product that was more dangerous than the competition, and that Polaris had taken reasonable efforts to warn of any potential injury.

[gtxscrider]

This case should be thrown out! If every single person starts suing pwc companys becouse they fell off a watercraft and got hurt. Every single company would stop production of these machines. Plain and simple the people who where riding that seadoo didnt have that much experience and probably werent doing everything right like they say they did. Hey i got thrown of my ultra doing 60+mph and had a sore back for 2 weeks, You dont see me bitching and complaining to kawasaki about how there ski isnt stable in rough water. There is no guerntee that you wont get hurt when your enjoying a power sport , Its just the risk you assume when you board a pwc.

[duramaxxed]

I can't wait til the Court finds out they were riding 4-up on a 3 Seater and the case gets thrown out right there.

[amharms]

I can't wait til the Court finds out they were riding 4-up on a 3 Seater and the case gets thrown out right there.

Preferably thrown out, billed for the courts wasted time, and charged with unsafe operation

[Blue 182]

I agree, weak case. Falling off back is just one risk. Thats why Owners Manual recommends wearing at least neoprene shorts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10411446&dopt=AbstractPlus

[Hydrotoys]

This was pursued and won against Polaris back in the 90's, but with a twist...there were no warning stickers. NOW there are on all craft.

There have been deaths because of this too. No matter of the outcome, please keep this in mind, especially with passengers.

Blatanly copied from Wikipedia...


PWC warning label indicating risk of body cavity injuries


Apart from the obvious hazards of collisions and mechanical breakdowns common to all vehicles, personal watercraft feature the unique hazard of orifice injuries.[2][3] Such injuries are the logical result of the unusually close proximity of PWC riders to the output end of the pump jet, as well as the fact that personal watercraft are usually not enclosed. A rider who falls (or is ejected) off the back can land directly in the path of the PWC's high-pressure jet of water. Unless a rider is appropriately dressed in garments made out of a strong, thick substance like neoprene (as is commonly found in wetsuits), the jet will easily penetrate any orifice it reaches. The consequences include permanent disability or death.[4][5] For example, in 2006, the California Court of Appeal (First District) upheld a $3.7 million Napa County jury verdict against Polaris Industries arising out of one such incident (which had devastating effects on the victim's lower abdomen).[6]
PWCs also present safety concerns in terms of their ability to steer. Since steering is achieved from aiming the nozzle of the pump jet, there is no rudder involved, which means the craft cannot be steered in an emergency breakdown situation. Also, steering is significantly reduced when the throttle is not being applied; this leads to dangerous situations because it is against one's instinct in an emergency to accelerate. However, turning is not effective without doing so. After market products are available to help with this problem, including different types of rudder steering systems such as Cobra Jet Steering. In 2001 Sea-doo added the O.P.A.S. (Off-Power Assisted Steering) system which uses rudders installed on the rear sides of the PWC to assist in steering.

Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 755 (2006). The plaintiff survived due to the heroic efforts of UC Davis Medical Center personnel (the court noted that she required "massive resuscitation") but was permanently disabled by her injuries; for example, she has no bowel control.

^ Bernard Descottes, Fouzi Lachachi, Issifou Moumouni, Sylvaine Durand-Fontanier and Ramy Geballa, "Case Report: Rectal Injury Caused by Personal Watercraft Accident," Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 46, no. 7 (June 2003): 971-972. The 16-year-old patient described in this case report was deceased. The autopsy revealed that the primary cause of death was toxic shock syndrome caused by the rectal tear.

^ David P. Parsons, Harry A. Kahn, John T. Isler and Richard P. Billingham, "Case Report: Rectal Injury Caused by Personal Watercraft Accident," Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 42, no. 7 (July 1999): 959-960. The patient described in this case report survived.

[97GPSLEEPER]

This happened in my hometown and at a place I ride sometimes. I work with a man that knows the parents of the injured girl. The first thing I told everybody at work was about the warning stickers and that they IMO do not have a case. I also suspect they were riding 4-up on a 3-seater.

[KirkF350]

This has been all the talk down here in our area; my own back yard.
The issue I have is this person who was falling off had to be doing her best to stay on. I would think the trust alone would have push her away from the ski or the pain from this bodily intrusion would be so bad that she would have had to let go.
No matter whose at fault, this is really sad.

[KirkF350]

What ski where they riding? If it is the one pictured, it does appear to be a 4 seater. Coincidentally, there just so happens to be one for sale 1 county away?

http://www.southeasttexas.com/classifieds/detail.cfm?id=363708&classified_code=boats_jetski&zipcode=&distance=0&type=general

[97GPSLEEPER]

+1 Captain Kirk! If it was infact an LRV, it had to be a major miscommunication between the driver & her. The seat is huge, and if you did slip back you would think the "sun deck" would be enough of a buffer for her to scream and the operator get out of the throttle before it was too late. JETSKI'S ARE NOT TOYS, WHATEVER THE CASE!!

[Blue 182]

This was pursued and won against Polaris back in the 90's, but with a twist...there were no warning stickers...Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 755 (2006). The plaintiff survived due to the heroic efforts of UC Davis Medical Center personnel (the court noted that she required "massive resuscitation") but was permanently disabled by her injuries...

One HUGE fact to know about the CA case against Polaris. The Polaris manual said that passenger could hold onto straps. The ski in question was sold with bolt holes for the straps, BUT NO STRAPS.

Polaris ADMITTED at trial that person would not have fallen off if ski had straps as intended. Jury told cost of straps was 50cents.

Although the point is buried in a lengthy court decision, I think it was that missing strap plus admission it would have prevented accident, that sunk Polaris.

CA does allow the DRIVER to assert the primary assumption of risk defense in a suit filed by PASSENGER. Defense only shields driver against suit for negligence (lack of ordinary care). Does not immunize DRIVER for "reckless misconduct" (wilfull or wanton disregard of known risk).

That was one of the points we discussed last year in regard to death on Lake Berryessa.