Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Product liability?

I'm sorry if any feathers were ruffled over this, it was not my original intent in bringing it up in the first place, my lack of knowledge and concern in this area was.

Each point made by everyone has a valid argument attached to it but, based on the responses and further consideration, my wife and I decided that this particular project will not have any other owners and here's why.

Jim made a valid argument regarding homebuilt aircraft and the standards they are required to meet. Ironically, I would sell a plane that I built for this very reason and feel relatively good about it, still a chancy affair, but there is precedent at least.

If I were to build and insure a K-350 to ABS standards and have it so certified, I would feel again, relatively comfortable, selling that as well. Why, because I believe in that case, emotions aside, opposing counsel would advise their client appropriately.

But what I am contemplating is a Joe Perkel invention with little in the way of standards other than what appears to have worked in the past and a healthy dose of the "that looks about right" standard.

In this case one could well imagine the now weeping, widowed, and childless Mrs. Smith coming to the conclusion that I killed her husband and son junior with an "infernal contraption" that I had no business selling in the first place with no Naval Architect or engineering credentials whatsoever. And her attorney coming to the conclusion that I really don't need a second home.

I just don't like that scenario at all.

Joe

From: "Akins" <lakins1@tampabay.rr.com>
Reply-To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Product liability?
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:29:12 -0500

You know, I read every post from this group. I carefully consider each one of them. Even though I respect our two co founders and do not want to diminish their credibility or logic in anyones eyes,

I have to say you make a lot of sense Jim and I have to agree with you and let the chips fall where they may. You make a convincing and logical argument which I cannot refute in my mind, so I have

to agree with it. Your point about Snoopy being sold and now owned by another who is educating kids is well taken as is your point about the defence of Bill Gifford on selling the Needlefish. I remember that

instance. I hope to not hurt anyones feeling nor make any enemies, but in my opinion Jim is correct in this instance and I have to stand up and say so.

Bill Akins.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim Pesanka

To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org

Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:21 AM

Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Product liability?

There you have it, gents. The official opinion of the two co-founders of the Psubs website: we should spend many years and thousands of dollars designing and building submarines, and then destroy them out of fear that we might get sued.

Personally, I think Ray pulled a boner, and Jon is trying to run damage control. 8^) But we have to believe they mean what they say.

Most things in life involve risk; and any involvement with submersibles most certainly does. But that's no reason to be pessimistic.

Following Jon's logic, there's just about nothing we can do that doesn't run some risk of being sued, so we shouldn't do anything. But who lives life that way?

Just look at all those first graders enjoying Snoopy. That's a wonderful thing, but it wouldn't have happened if Dale&nbs! p;Heinzig had been so paranoid that he destroyed his home-built submarine instead of selling it to Alec Smythe.

I know other people who have owned and sold submersibles, too. None of them have been sued. In fact, I have never heard of anyone being sued over a home-built submarine.

And interestingly enough, Jon recently spoke out in defense of Bill Gifford when he was trying to sell his Needlefish on Ebay, and people in this group were saying it wasn't a good idea to buy it.

To me, telling us to destroy our subs rather than sell them because we might get sued, makes about as much sense as telling us to kill our children rather than letting them go out on their own, because they might do something we'll be liable for.

However, we must take Jon or Ray at their word. So if they ever do build submarines, we! know they will destroy their creations rather than passing them on. And perhaps, in their case, that might be a good idea. 8^)

But in any event, if anyone in this group is going to destroy a submarine before selling it, please let me know when and where so I can take pictures. I wouldn't want to miss that! 8^)

Cheers!

Jim

Jon Wallace <jonw@whoweb.com> wrote:

In the US, you can, and people do,! file suit for anything regardless of common law, contracts, or common sense. Pre-nuptual agreements can be challenged. Contractual agreements can be challenged. Last will and testaments can be challenged. We've got state governments suing tobacoo companies for smoke related illnesses even though every package carries a mandatory warning that smoking IS dangerous to your health. We've got people who sue McDonalds because they carelessly spill coffee on themselves and file claim that the coffee was too hot. Anna Nicole had a written will from her former 80(something) year old hubby that was challenged by other blood relatives.

I think Ray's point was well taken for those of us in the US. You should seriously consider any ramifications that might occur if you sell or even give away your sub, and it fails to perform flawlessly. It's not because the person you sell it to, or their family, has a valid claim against you that will stand up in court. It's the fact that it will cost you a lot of money to respond to that challenge and have a court (or jury) determine that the claim was invalid. Ray appears unwilling to put himself in a position that would even require him to respond to such a challenge. I'm there as well. But others may be willing to take that risk.

Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.