Propeller Guard Information Center

Archive for Legal Shorts

Casey Schulman, a University of Virginia (UVA) senior participating in the UVA Semester at Sea program was struck and killed by a boat propeller on the island of Dominica in December 2012.

Recently, her family hired legal assistance to try to encourage further action in Dominca.

Today, Thursday 9 November 2013 Andrew Armour, captain of the Sail Cat that backed over her was arrested and charged with manslaughter in St. Joseph Magistrate Court in Dominica.

Anchorage Dive Center Sail Cat

Anchorage Dive Center Sailing Catamaran
involved in the Casey Schulman accident

Armour was not required to enter a plea and is to be back in court on May 14th. Read More→

Print Friendly
0 Categories : Legal Shorts

C.F. Bean, operator of the dredging operation allegedly struck by Mark Barhnovich’s boat in his December 2012 fatality near Deer Island, Mississippi previously filed a Praying for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability case in this matter. We covered Bean’s filing at Jones Act Suit by C.F. Bean.

We also covered the filing by Mark Barhanovich’s widow in the same U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi at Barhanovich v. Bean & Archer.

Now, both sides are beginning to respond to each other.

On 3 May 2013, Archer Western (the overall contractor) filed in response to Bean’s Claim for Exoneration or Limitation of Liability. In their 5 page filing Archer basically says they (Archer) are totally indemnified by Bean in the contract. In addition to Archer being protected from any lawsuits, Bean is also contractually obligated to pay any attorney fees, court costs, and legal expenses Archer might incur. Read More→

Print Friendly
0 Categories : Legal Shorts

Casey Schulman

Casey Schulman

Casey Schulman, a University of Virginia (UVA) student, was killed December 1, 2012 by the propeller of an excursion vessel in Dominica while on a UVA “Semester at Sea” program. We covered the accident at Student Killed by Propeller in Dominica.

As is frequently the case at water tourism destination sites outside the U.S., the Schulman family feels their daughter’s death has not been sufficiently investigated and appropriate actions have not been taken against those they feel are responsible.

We have seen this play out countless times before. The 2000 Kirsty MacColl accident in Mexico, the 2002 Paul Gallagher (age 2 of the UK) accident in the Bahamas, the 2007 Quesnel & Laso (of Spain) accidents in Trinidad & Tobago, 2007 Rebecca Stockwell/Crowell (of New Zealand) accident in Fiji, and the 2009 Paige Welch (age 13) accident in Trinidad & Tobaggo are just few examples of families that struggled for years in attempts to extract answers and justice from destinations where tourism is big money and local officials have “reasons” not to rock the boat. Read More→

Print Friendly
0 Categories : Legal Shorts

Jerrie Barhanovich, widow of Mark Barhanovich filed suit against C.F. Bean and Archer Western Contractors in the death of her husband resulting from a boating accident in which his boat allegedly struck a dredge pipe.

We previously covered the accident in Mark Barhanovich Boat Propeller Accident at Deer Island Near Biloxi, MS: Dredge Pipe Strike?.

We also covered the Jones Act suit by C.F. Bean, their attempt to limit their potential liability in this accident.

Now, Jerrie Barhanovich has filed suit in those proceedings. Her case is: Jerrie P. Barhanovich, Executrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Barhanovich, Deceased.

It was filed 20 March 2013 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

The claim begins by describing the September 16, 2012 accident that claimed Mark Barhanovich’s life. It says a vessel in navigation (the barge) created a submerged obstruction (the dredge pipe) and failed to adequately “monitor, mark, light, and warn” of the obstruction.

Claims are being made under admiralty and maritime law. Bean and Archer are subject to jurisdiction because they were the proximate cause of Mark Barhanovich’s injuries, and their acts arose from a contract in part with the State of Mississippi. Read More→

Print Friendly
0 Categories : Legal Shorts

On 31 July 2009, UNSW (Australia) School of Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences was conducting a field trip in Darling Harbor. Students were to visit sites within the harbour using an outboard powered RIB and move on to other nearby destinations.

The boat operator (a University research assistant with a boat operator license) was turning at about 10 to 12 knots, lost control of the Zodiac RIB, and three passengers were ejected. A student (Ms. Gall) among those ejected was seriously struck by the boat or propeller.

The University was sued by WorkCover NSW in New South Wales (NSW) Industrial Court for failing to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 2000, and fined $100,000 (Australian dollars).

The boat was found to have been too heavily loaded in the bow, creating bow steering, which caused the boat to inadvertently steer to the left or right.

Following the accident, UNSW implemented several safety changes and has since logged over 500 boating days without an accident.

Importance of This Fine

While the claims are not specific as to the injured party being struck by the boat OR by the propeller, this case comes on the heels of the Australian Military Being Fined $210,000 for Not Using Propeller Guards.

Together, these two workplace cases set a considerable precedent. Workplace Safety Australia is going to be investigating workplace propeller injuries to determine if the employer had proper safety practices and equipment in place before the accident, and charging employers that fail to safeguard their employees.

New Zealand has been seeing several propeller accidents recently and is obviously watching what is going on in Australia. The U.K. is still responding the high profile fatality of Charlie Hutton, along with many other propeller accidents. As we visit with people “in the mix” in the UK they are very aware of what is happening in Australia on this front and many other propeller safety issues.

These cases are setting a significant precedent for workplace propeller safety around the world, and a wakeup call for those manufacturing recreational boats and marine drives as well. Read More→

Print Friendly
0 Categories : Legal Shorts

Mark Barhanovich

Mark Barhanovich

Mark Barhanovich (deceased)is the defendant in a Jones Act suit by C.F. Bean regarding the September 16, 2012 boating accident in which Mr. Barhanovich is alleged to have struck a dredge pipe near Deer Island, Mississippi.

We previously covered the accident in detail at Mark Barhanovich Boat Propeller Accident at Deer Island Near Biloxi, MS: Dredge Pipe Strike?”.

The current lawsuit is:
In the Matter of C.F. Bean LLC, as Owner Pro Hac Vice and Operator, and Bean Meridian LLC, as the Record Owner, of the Barge Bean 20, Official 627225, Praying for Exoneration from or Limita v. Mark Barhanovich. Filed 15 March 2013 in Federal Court in Mississippi Southern District Court.

The motive behind C.F. Bean and Bean Meridian in filing the case is an attempt to limit any potential liability on their part. They are doing this by claiming the Jones Act applies. In the U.S. (with the exception of some states and some situations), the liability for damages and injuries caused by a vessel in navigable waters is limited to the value of the vessel and its contents (freight) after the incident. Back in 1851 when Congress passed the Limitation of Liability Act (now part of the Jones Act), their intent was to reduce the potential liability of ship owners. Congress reduced their potential liability to encourage investment and competition in waterborne commerce (shipping and transportation). Read More→

Print Friendly
0 Categories : Legal Shorts

Lora and I attended the 2013 Tulsa Boat Show on Wednesday January 30th. We were quickly overwhelmed with swim platform seats, aft facing seats, swim deck seating. Swim platform seats were almost ubiquitous on midsize and large boats.

Swim platform seat on Chaparral 310 Signature Cruiser

Swim platform seat on Chaparral 310 Signature Cruiser

The extreme popularity of this design can lead to some problems. Most of the boats with swim deck seats have a warning label telling you not to sit in them when underway, but we suspect those warnings are often ignored.

For example, pontoon boats have warnings telling you not to sit on the bow, but every year several children and a few adults sit up there dangling their feet in the water, fall in, and are struck by the propeller.

Other warnings tell you to make sure you have a spotter at the stern before reversing a houseboat due to poor aft visibility. These warnings are also often ignored, especially by rental boat operators, and people in the water are struck by the propeller.


Table of Contents

  • Safety Issues Created by Rear Facing Swim Platform Seating
  • Probability Discussion of Swim Platform Seating
  • Swim Platform Seating Accidents
  • Possible Safety Devices & Methods for Swim Platform Seating
  • These Boats Look Like Great Fun, But …
  • Swim Platform Seats Seen at the 2013 Tulsa Boat Show
  • Swim Platform Seat Warnings

Read More→

Print Friendly
0 Categories : Legal Shorts

We attended the 2013 Tulsa Boat Show on Wednesday afternoon January 30, 2013. Following up on our 2012 post on Propeller Warning Labels at the Tulsa Boat Show, once again, Lora and I walked around and photographed propeller warning labels / decals. Once again we were surprised at the variety of decals and warnings.

Lora quickly noted we were seeing a lot more decals at the stern than at last years show. While some boat still had no labels of any kind at the stern, many boats had numerous warning labels displayed.

While we plan of further discussing the trend in a separate post, rearward facing seats at the swim platform were almost ubiquitous on large and midsize boats. Many of those vessels have a decal / warning label telling you not to ride in those seats when underway or when the engine is running.

We also plan to create a separate post on the industry’s continued disregard for the ANSI Z-535 warning standard. While many boats, drives, and accessories (especially wake boarding accessories) screamed their styling influences, it is obvious those talented individuals were not assigned to designing ANSI Z-535 warning labels. Few if any warning would actually meet the standard and we saw some labels/warnings that were obviously a last minute thought.

In addition to propeller warnings and rearward facing seat warnings, many boats now have one or more fueling warnings at the stern AND many now have a “No E-15″ warning at the stern as well. Among other labels we saw back there were “Made in the USA”, NMMA Certified, carbon monoxide warning, trademarks and patented stickers, check outboard mounting bolt tightness, swim platform warnings, ladder capacity warnings, toe eye notice, falling warnings, don’t step here warnings, water jet outlet and intake warnings, warning to read the manual and instructions, power steering warnings, ethanol warnings (E-85), ladder use warnings, and a warning against over trimming or tilting.

We also noted the comical placement of some labels (impossible to view when you need to heed them).

The comments below are our quick observations of some of the variety seen in propeller warning labels at a single boat show. Our comments also identify some of the challenges specific warning labels have with ANSI Z535.4 – 2011 (the American National Standards Institute warning standard). Note, the industry may claim ABYC T-5 Safety Signs and Labels applies. ABYC’s web site says it was last revised in 2002. The January 15-16, 2013 ABYC PTC Meeting minutes report Product Technical Committee discussing the status of T-5. It opens with, “Is this standard still relevant?”

Although we also saw several propeller warning labels identical to the ones we saw at the 2012 Tulsa Boat Show, we did not rephotograph them. The only ones we show below are those new to our sample of propeller safety related labels in 2013.

We will briefly discuss the warning standard (ANSI Z535.4), begin with the propeller warning labels, then move to other warnings that are also relevant to propeller safety. Read More→

Print Friendly
2 Categories : Legal Shorts

The Isle of Wight corner’s inquest was resumed into the death of Charlie Hutton. We previously covered the 20 July 2012 Charlie Hutton Propeller Accident off the Isle of Wight (off the south east coast of England) near a picturesque area with some tall rocks known as the Needles.

Charlie Hutton 2011 Whitgift Field Hockey Team

Charlie Hutton on 2011 Whitgift Field Hockey Team.
He is on the front row, third boy from the left

The 14 year old boy from south Croydon (near London) was on a RIB powered by a 200 horsepower outboard with his father and two teenage friends. A wave washed Charlie and one of his friends off the boat. They had been riding in the bow hanging on to the ropes. Charlie was fatally injured by the propeller and the other 14 year old boy was injured by the propeller. Read More→

Print Friendly
0 Categories : Legal Shorts

Yamaha Prop Guard Statements

Yamaha Prop Guard Statements

In March 2012 Yamaha announced a new stainless steel propeller guard for outboards on flood rescue boats in the UK and made several statements about how great it was, how well it performed, and even how prop guards were necessary when people were in the water near the boat. About October we became aware of Yamaha’s new propeller guard. In mid October we began posting some materials about it and some of Yamaha’s own statements about their guard.

The boating industry has long defended itself in propeller injury court cases by claiming propeller guards don’t work. Among their objections, the industry claims guards create too much drag, reduce performance (top speed), effect the handling of the boat, are not durable enough, get bent into the propeller, and they create blunt trauma injuries when they strike people.

But Yamaha was making the exact opposite statements about their propeller guard. Yamaha said their guard worked great, minimized drag and performance reduction, improved handling, was strong and durable for use in shallow water, and guards were essential for operating rescue boats near people in the water.

Our mid October 2012 posts echoed several of Yamaha’s own comments.

By early November 2012, everything Yamaha ever said about the propeller guard AND all records of the guard’s existence vanished from their website. We made many attempts to contact Yamaha about why they pulled all of their materials about the propeller guard, but they will not respond. That leaves us to suspect Yamaha erased their statements to protect the boating industry’s long standing legal defense, “Guards don’t work”.

Among the many specific statements made and deleted by Yamaha about their propeller guard were:

  • “a new design of propeller guard, shaped to give greatest strength, with minimum water-flow disturbance to the propeller giving maximum performance when required.”
  • “For shallow and unpredictable conditions, a Plastic Prop Guard or stainless steel Deflector Guard will assist in limiting the chance of foreign objects fouling the propeller. In addition, these guards aid control of water flow from the propeller and can increase thrust at low RPM.”
  • Yamaha propeller guards, tailored to fit individual engines, are also specifically designed to have minimal impact on performance.”
  • “When operating in a flooded environment there is also the possibility of casualties in the water, which means a propeller guard is essential to reduce the risk of injury.”
  • “When operating in flooded environments the liklihood of swimmers/diver/casualties being in the water means that a prop. guard is essential.”

We dare the boating industry trade press to cover this important story. Don’t let the industry banish this life saving propeller guard just to protect themselves in court.

We need some help. We call upon:

  • The press to cover this story, especially the boating press.
  • Boating safety organizations and the United States Coast Guard to take action to prevent Yamaha from further suppressing this technology.
  • The legal and judicial system to prevent Yamaha from destroying test data from which they claim this was the best propeller guard they ever tested.
  • The boating industry itself to do what is best for the safety of their customers and put some peer pressure on Yamaha to do the right thing.
  • Our fellow propeller safety advocates to help get the word out.

Below we provide details of the events surrounding Yamaha’s deletion of these materials. Read More→

Print Friendly
0 Categories : Legal Shorts