the design of the boats does not give sufficient margin for the average operator, in my opinion.
With due respect, I think you’re getting designs of boats confused. The boat in question was a Response. A direct drive ski boat (NOT wake boat, significant difference). Think old Stars and Stripes MasterCraft or the traditional Correct Craft ski tug. Small, light weight, no amenities, single axle trailer, probably weighs less than 2500 pounds, not the large, heavy V drive surf boats. Those (especially the new ones) have PLENTY of free board. They might not ride great in rough water but they are safe in about any condition an average lake will throw at them.
And I’ll never understand the magnitude of this verdict. From most reports, the driver was grossly negligent, intentionally hitting hard reverse causing the bow to submerge with horrific results.
If this was a simple property damage case there would have been no suit. Or at least I can’t imagine one happening. But with the absolute tragic loss of life things changed, and like mentioned before, they went after who has the deeper pockets.
I can’t imagine any “boating course” going over something that should be common sense - don’t intentionally stuff the bow of the boat.
And I’d argue hard it isn’t about product design. V drive and direct drive boats are inherently the safest for water sports - you don’t have a spinning prop hanging off the stern like you do in a sterndrive or outboard - it’s hidden underwater several feet forward of the stern - the only way you can hit it is if the boat RUNS OVER someone in the water.
Would Ranger/Lund/Sea Ray be sued if the driver backed into someone in the water and the obviously exposed prop came in contact with someone? I’ve been involved with amputees that lost limbs that way and can tell you there weren’t suits in the cases I have first hand knowledge of.
