Propeller Guard Information Center

Archive for Brunswick

Apr
10
2012

Log Strike Testing Part 1: Log Strikes and Log Strike Systems

by Gary

As outboard motors began to increase in horsepower, speeds went up, and striking submerged objects became more dangerous. Manufacturers designed systems to handle the loads created from striking logs or other submerged objects, and ways to test those systems.

We (PGIC) cover log strike testing because the industry often uses log strike tests to evaluate propeller guards, most notably as a defense against the use of guards in propeller injury legal cases.

Part 2 of this post, Log Strike Testing Part 2 covers the testing of these systems at Mercury Marine.

Before we cover the history of log strike testing (in Part 2), we will first explain:

  • Variables and Dynamics of a Log Strike
  • Log Strikes With Manual Trim Systems
  • Conventional Shock Absorbers as Log Strike Systems
  • Hydraulic Trim Systems Are Challenged by Log Strikes
  • Trim Cylinder Design for Absorbing / Cushioning Log Strikes
  • Trim Cylinder Relief Valve Spring Rates and Preloads
  • Trim Cylinder and Outboard Shock Absorber Patents

Read More→

0 Categories : Testing Propeller Guards
Apr
10
2012

Log Strike Testing Part 2: A History of Log Strike Testing at Mercury Marine / Dry-land Impact Testing

by Gary

A Discussion of the History of Log Strike Testing at Mercury (Kiekhaefer Corporation), Kiekhaefer Mercury, and Later at Mercury Marine, a Brunswick Company

Please be sure to review Part 1 before reading this section. In Log Strike Testing Part 1: Log Strikes and Log Strike Systems we review what happens during a log strike and systems designed to dissipate these impact loads.

Here in Part 2 we discuss methods used to test log strike systems to make sure they are properly designed to accommodate loads generated at maximum design speeds, that production units meet those design criteria, and that accessories (like propeller guards) do not cause issues during log strikes. Read More→

0 Categories : Testing Propeller Guards
Apr
3
2012

Log Strike Testing – 1950′s Mercury Video

by Gary

Log strike tests have long been used by Mercury to prove their outboards and stern drives could survive the impact of striking submerged logs and other floating or submerged obstacles. In the original log strike tests, Mercury’s test crew used concrete weights to position telephone poles horizontally in open water, then ran boats over them. One of these early tests is documented in a Mercury (then built by Kiekhaefer Corporation) video prepared for Mercury distributors and dealers.

We (PGIC) cover log strike testing because the industry often uses log strike tests to evaluate propeller guards, most notably as a defense against the use of guards in propeller injury legal cases.

This early log strike test video surfaced when we began doing some research surrounding the Estate of David Paul McFarlin and Jamie Laass vs. Brunswick Corporation (Mercury Marine and Lund Company) and Others case in which a family boating outing ran over a dredge pipe, a Mercury Marine outboard flipped back up into the boat, and a young boy was killed by the propeller. As I started searching for more information about log strike tests, I found this old Mercury log strike test video.

Mercury Log Strike Test

Mercury Log Strike Test

Read More→

0 Categories : Testing Propeller Guards
Mar
4
2012

Propeller Warning Labels Seen at the 2012 Tulsa Boat Show

by Gary

We attended the 2012 Tulsa Boat Show on Saturday morning February 4, 2012. While still getting used to my new digital camera, Lora and I walked around and shot photos of propeller warning decals. I am well aware there is quite a bit of variety in propeller warning decals, but found an even broader selection at this show than I would have anticipated. We show some of them below, as well as some other warning labels seen at the 2012 Tulsa Boat Show.

The comments below are NOT an analysis of boat propeller warning labels. They are just our quick observations of some of the variety seen in propeller warning labels at a single boat show. We are not saying any of the labels are better or worse than others. We are just saying they are different. We continue to encourage the industry to adopt ANSI Z535 standards for boat propeller warning labels.

Propeller Warning Decal with Ladder

Propeller Warning Decal with Ladder

Many propeller warning decals are used in conjunction with the boat boarding ladder as shown in the Brunswick Bayliner boat ladder example above. We talk further about Brunswick’s use of a Danger label instead of the typical Warning label later in this post. Read More→

0 Categories : Legal Shorts
Jan
24
2012

Estate of David Paul McFarlin and Jamie Laass vs. Brunswick Corporation (Mercury Marine and Lund Company) and Others

by Gary

A young boy, David Paul McFarlin, was killed in a May 31, 2010 Storm Lake Iowa boating accident. A Labor Day boat outing on Storm Lake became a tragedy when their 175 horsepower Mercury Marine outboard motor struck a submerged dredge pipe on Storm Lake, the Mercury outboard flipped backwards into the boat, and David Paul McFarlin, a ten years old boy, was killed by its propeller.

The full title of the case is:
Estate of David Paul McFarlin, by its Personal Representative, Jamie Laass, Jamie Laass individually; and Jamie Laass, as parent and next friend of S.L. vs. City of Storm Lake, and Iowa Municipal Corporation, Buena Vista County, and Iowa municipal corporation, Lake Improvement Commission, an Iowa Chapter 28E organization, Brunswick Corporation, a Delaware corporation, dba Mercury Marine and Lund Boat Company, Harry Foote, Randy Redig, Russell Harrington, and David Botine.

Justia titles the case as Laass, et al vs. City of Storm Lake, et al

Jamie Laass is the boy’s mother, Harry Foote was operating the boat, Redig, Harrington, and Botine are the dredging defendants.

Brunswick (Mercury Marine and Lund) is being sued for negligent design and warnings. The case is in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa Western Division. Read More→

0 Categories : Legal Shorts
Dec
27
2011

Mercury Marine Tells Court the McGarrigil Accident is the First One Involving Mercury Tiller Steered Outboards

by Gary

In McGarrigle v. Mercury Marine, a propeller / kill switch case, Mercury Marine claims John McGarrigle is the the first person NOT using a kill switch to be injured by a Mercury Marine tiller steered outboard.

We find that hard to believe, but before we can prove them wrong, we need to determine exactly what Mercury Marine’s legal team said.

On page 8 of the 20 December 2011 Partial Summary Judgement Opinion by the Court, (document 41 in the U.S. District Court New Jersey case docket), the court restates Mercury’s position:

Defendant argues that Dr. Fisher should not be permitted to testify that the design of the outboard engine was and is defective because it does not incorporate a lanyard A type stop switch. Defendant states that between 1986 and July 2007, it sold more than 750,000 8 to 25 horsepower outboard engines that use the lanyard B. It also states that, other than plaintiff’s accident, it is aware of no other accidents of a scenario similar to plaintiff’s, which resulted in propeller strike injuries to an ejected operator of a small hand-tilled outboard engine who did not use the lanyard B.

Read More→

0 Categories : Legal Shorts
Dec
21
2011

Kenneth W. Fisher Will be Allowed to Testify for Plaintiffs in McGarrigle v. Mercury Marine

by Gary

For basic information on John McGarrigle and Barbara McGarrigle v. Mercury Marine in U.S. District Court, D. New Jersey, see our McGarrigle v. Mercury Marine case page.

Very briefly, John McGarrigle fell from a small boat when it hit a wave, was not wearing a lanyard kill switch, the boat circled repeatedly, he tried to re-board it, and was struck by the propeller.

Both sides moved for summary judgement on some issues prior to the trial. Both sides won some issues and lost some issues. The full opinion written by Disrict Judge Noel L. Hillman is available on Leagle.com.

The defense tried to block Kenneth W. Fisher from being an expert witness for the plaintiff. They said he was not an expert in this field (kill switches on small boats) under Daubert. They also do not want to allow Dr. Fisher or others to use U.S. Coast Guard Navigational and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 4-89 (Circular 4-89). Defense claims Circular 4-89 only applies to commercial vessels. Defense also wants to prevent Dr. Fisher or others from using American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) F 1166-07 standard regarding human factors engineering (they grant it refers to ships and marine structures, but claim it does not specifically mention recreational boats).

In a 20 December 2011 opinion, the court said Dr. Fisher will be allowed to testify and he can use ASTM F 1166-07, but he will not be allowed to use Circular 4-89.

At the same time, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgement to prevent Defense from being able to claim the accident was caused by the victim taking a small boat out in choppy water and going too fast, they also wanted to block evidence of his behavior after being ejected (tired to re-board the circling boat), and wanted to block evidence that neither Mr Garrigle or his father read the outboard owners manual.

In the same 20 December 2011 opinion, the court said the defense would be allowed to present evidence of a proximate cause of the accident being the condition of the water and the speed of the boat. Defense will also be allowed to discuss the victim’s attempts to re-board the circling boat. The defense will not be able to introduce the failure of Mr. Garrigle or his father to read the owners manual as evidence of comparative fault or as a proximate cause because the defendant acknowledges some people operate their outboards without reading the manual, and thus it was foreseeable. Read More→

0 Categories : Legal Shorts
Jul
6
2011

Litigation Testing Continues in Testing of Propeller Guards by Mercury Marine / Brunswick

by Gary

Litigation Testing of propeller safety devices was defined by Stephen Bolden, author of Motorboat Propeller Injury Accidents, as

“…manufacturers, in performing litigation testing, are not concerned with gathering information for the purpose of redesigning or improving a guard; rather, they are concerned with simply reporting on whatever propeller guard deficiencies they are able to demonstrate through such testing”

When manufacturers test their own products or components against certain criteria or test protocols and their products fail, those involved in the testing process often offer suggestions for improving the product. But when “legal” wants a propeller safety device tested, often against very challenging criteria, the propeller safety device fails or performs poorly in some part of the test, and nobody has any ideas of how it could be improved or ever be made to pass the test, even when the solution is extremely obvious. Read More→

1 Categories : Legal Shorts
Jul
5
2011

Brunswick Misled Two Federal Courts on Frequency of Propeller Accidents

by Gary

Brunswick requested a rehearing of the Jacob Brochtrup v. Mercury Marine and Sea Ray, both divisions of Brunswick Corporation propeller injury case before the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 10, 2011.

On page three of Brunswick’s formal request for a rehearing, Brunswick faults Brochtrup for not providing information on the frequency or likelihood of injuries like those he received, no evidence of the number of accidents involving exposed boat propellers, and no proof of the “frequency or likelihood of injuries caused by exposed propellers on boats of this design” (Brunswick claims propeller accidents are rare events).

Then on the top of page 4, Brunswick cites some propeller accident frequency comments made by Peter Chisholm, Mercury Marine Product Safety Manager, during the original trial in U.S. District Court, Texas Western District, Austin Division:

The jury heard no evidence any closer to this subject than the testimony from Peter Chisholm, Mercury Marine’s Product Safety Manager, and that testimony did nothing to help Brochtrup on this point. Chisholm merely agreed that some unspecified number of people are injured by boat propellers each year, but he firmly denied this number was even as large as one hundred.

Read More→

0 Categories : Legal Shorts
Jul
1
2011

Brunswick Calls For Rehearing of Brochtrup Propeller Case Appeal

by Gary

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found for Brochtrup on May 27, 2011 in Brunswick’s appeal of a U.S. District Court, Western District, Austin Division jury finding for Brochtrup resulting from a July 1, 2005 propeller accident. Mercury Marine and Sea Ray are the Brunswick units listed on the case.

On June 10, 2011 Brunswick filed for a rehearing of their appeal before the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Brunswick’s request for a rehearing is based on two points: Read More→

0 Categories : Legal Shorts

Featured Content

Aspects of the Propeller Safety Debate chart

Houseboat Propeller Regulation Proposed and Withdrawn by USCG: Analysis by PGIC