----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:23
PM
Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Product
liability?
Hi
Jim,
I
agree that you've made some excellent points. And I can see how my
response to this topic and my feelings about Bill Gifford appear at odds with
each other. However, I think your reasoning in this discussion (at least
what I have seen thusfar) continues to discount the
potential risk that each individual may have to
assume when selling a submersible. That will be different for every
person and is not something that you can put a "right" or "wrong" tag
onto.
I
don't care a wit whether someone else decides to sell their sub, donate it to
a museum, or scrap it. It's their sub, and what they do with it is their
business, not mine. I don't get attached to inanimate objects, so
scrapping a sub doesn't impact me emotionally the way it appears to impact
you. In my message below, I said that the seller should seriously
consider any ramifications that might occur from a sale. I don't see
that statement having a logical conclusion that there's nothing we can do
without risk, therefore we should do nothing. That sounds like
hyperbole.
I
never said destroying a sub out of fear of being sued was what anyone
should do, or that it was the only option. Why did you make this
assumption? And why do you put any relevance on the fact that I am a
co-founder of PSUBS.ORG? I don't own a sub, have never built one, don't
have the equipment to build one, and don't have the knowledge to build one
even if I had the equipment available to do so. I am probably the least
knowledgable person on this mailing list in regards to submersible
design. Please don't take any of my comments regarding sub-design,
construction, use, or sales thereof; as doctrine. My opinion that
home-built sellers should seriously consider any ramifications that might
occur from selling their sub for use as a submersible, is just that...my
opinion. Your opinion seems to be that there should be no consideration
by the seller of anything (except perhaps the purchase price), and
if you want to sell your sub, just go ahead and sell. Can
you not accept that differing opinions can both have
value?
No,
I'm not trying to run damage control. Hahaha..:) This discussion
is not a threat to PSUBS.ORG and Ray is perfectly capable of standing on his
own two feet regarding discussions he chooses to participate in.
Furthermore, if Ray's opinion is that subs should never be sold, then I
disagree with his opinion. However, I agree with Ray's conservative
approach to the issue of submersible sales and don't feel his opinion should
be discounted outright. Ray has a pretty good head on his
shoulders...he's worth listening to.
You
say you have never heard of anyone being sued over a home-built
submarine. Can you state categorically that it could never happen?
Is it not worth a fleeting thought, even if discounted after further
consideration? Five years ago I had never heard of a fast food
restaurant being sued over hot coffee, but then it happened. I can't
accept your argument that because you've never heard of anyone being sued over
selling a home-built submersible, there is no risk to doing so. I have
to give the thought some weight, because I may be the first one. What do
you find so offensive about that?
You've taken my words regarding Bill Gifford out of context. On
Nov 3, 2005, someone wrote to the mailing list insinuating (in my opinion)
that the Needlefish was not a good sub, couldn't trim, couldn't dive, and that
we should be asking questions regarding its seaworthiness because Gifford had
not offered the sub to the PSUBS group before putting up on Ebay. I
responded that I thought Gifford was a respectable person and that I didn't
think Gifford was trying to falsely sell an unseaworthy sub as
seaworthy. My comments had nothing to do with whether he should sell the
sub or not. That's not my business to decide. However, Gifford is
a successful marina owner (a huge one) and boat dealer. Since he is in
the business of selling boats, I suspect he has the resources (legally
speaking) to ensure that his risks (and yes he still has risks) were
minimalized. Furthermore, I'm guessing the sub was sold by Gifford
Marine, not Bill Gifford personally. That means the business assumes any
risk with potential lawsuits, not Bill Gifford. So he doesn't have to
worry about anyone taking his car, house, or other personal possessions to pay
for a potential lawsuit. That's a big difference in potential
risk than the guy who doesn't have a big corporation standing behind
him.
You
reference the sale Dale Heinzig's sub to Alec Smyth and say that Dale was not
paranoid about it. Your conclude therefore, that the rest of
us need not worry about any risk with our sub sales because Dale did not see
any with his. I don't see how that makes logical sense
unless we can be assured that Alec is going to be the purchaser of all
our subs. Then, we can at least look back in a historical perspective
and see that to this date Alec has not sued anyone from whom he has purchased
a submersible. That would be false logic however, in that it only
considers one variable out of many that exist. If Alec dove with Snoopy
the day after it was purchased and an accident occurred that incapacitated or
killed Alec, what makes you believe that his wife would not have brought suit
against Dale? Can you not admit that it is at least a
possibility?
I
think you want to "win" this argument, but I don't think this is a discussion
where anyone is right or wrong. It's a matter of personal choice.
You obviously have no worries about risk and would sell your submersible to a
cub scout if you could get away with it. I on the other hand, am more
conservative and would be a bit more cautious who I sold it too. Ray is
very conservative and might scrap his sub instead of selling it. What's
wrong with any of those philosophies?
Jon
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 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.