PROPELLER GUARDS (Fall 98)
We've written a number of articles on propeller guards (if you are reading this on our
home page, links to these articles will appear here). The courts had said that the Coast
Guard, after studied deliberations, had exercised federal jurisdiction by declaring
propeller guards were not required. This action preempted state laws and precluded actions
against manufacturers for failure to install propeller guards. Plaintiffs argued that
propeller guards would prevent or reduce injuries to swimmers.
However, the battle is not over. Renewed life is appearing for plaintiff attorneys. As
reported in the last issue of the EXPERT the 11th circuit upheld the Lewis v Brunswick
decision to dismiss the suit against Brunswick.
The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Arguments were heard in the spring of
1998. Later, both parties withdrew the appeal having settled the case out of court for an
undisclosed amount. The Supreme Court issued a "no decision" order and thus that
litigation ended.
Why was the matter settled since previous court rulings upon which this case relied
appeared to support the manufacturer?
The Coast Guard, after having issued a decision that propeller guards were
unwarranted, reopened the matter by publishing a notice that they were reconsidering
whether propeller guards should be required on slow moving boats such as houseboats. This
weakens the basis on which lower court decisions were made. Could it be that Brunswick
foresaw a possible reversal of the appellant court's decision. Stay tuned for the next
installment of the "propeller guard" saga.