Falling in a vessel at a boat show

[Cadence]

I went back and read the OP. If I had a broken back would I really care about a swab up my nose? Which people do daily as a COVID test. Maritine law at a boat show in Miami? Is it a call for empathy or sympathy or a hoax?
If I'm an A-hole so be it. If it is legit, I wish them well, get a good attorney.

[Bycrick]

"it is seriously tilted towards the wealthy." Absolutely true, but what do you expect? People only have a limited amount of knowledge and expertise. As the world gets more complicated, more and more things require specialist expertise. So you develop a class of "artisans" that have that skill. Even if it’s just a better or prettier piece of pottery, much less a witch doctor or a good hunter. The guy who has two banana trees can get a better piece of pottery or a witch doctor with better spells. And he’ll get it before the guy who has nothing to trade but a smile. If that weren’t true, why would anybody plant two banana trees when they only need one to feed themself? So, rich people can get more or better doctors, lawyers or Indian chiefs. What’s new?

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by chris mac

All I have to go on is the picture, which shows a clearly raised edge on the counter. So does the built in shelving on the left side going down(I'm assuming as a place to grip on the lower steps)
As I said, it's similar to the setup on my boat which I find useful.
If I'm reading the pictures wrong, I apologize. But again it's all I have.
I do feel for you, and wish you a full recovery.
I took a bad fall in my 20's which left me with a triple fused ankle. Obviously that altered my balance and walking ability for life. So I take notice of any and all grip and traction points.

My look at the picture shows a raised edge, clearly visible.

[Bycrick]

You want inventions and new products? Train engineers.
You want liability lawsuits? Train lawyers.
You want to make sure those engineers don’t take all those new inventions and products to your competitor? Train more lawyers.

[Bycrick]

I"f the someone is you, you might like a good lawyer to help. (generic "you" - not pointing fingers at anyone). Just saying." Nah, just pointing out a glaring omission in the English language. There’s no "indefinite you" in current English. "One might …." is proper, but almost never used. Spanish has "hay que …." or "se puede ….." but not English. Don’t apologize just because some people have thin skins.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by slipaway

Well not all lawyers are personal injury lawyers.... might want to train lawyers to prosecute criminals, or defend you when you are accused, or advise you on the contract you want to sign, etc. etc. any number of other things in our increasingly complex world. Not to mention sometimes there really are people out there who's gross negligence hurts someone... if the someone is you, you might like a good lawyer to help. (generic "you" - not pointing fingers at anyone). Just saying.

Totally fair point, slipaway. Here's my thinking, but it is speculative and I would cede the point to contrary data. I would think that there is a baseline level of legal work that has to be done. Criminal law. Large financial transactions, divorces, Pintos* with exploding gas tanks. Stuff like this I would think has intrinsic demand and those legal needs get taken care of** pretty much independent of how many lawyers there are (within reasonable bounds). But if you train substantially more lawyers than are needed for this kind of work - what are they going to do? Create more work. And there is a nearly limitless pool of liability cases to ambulance chase.
I am recollecting (but don't have the numbers) that this effect has been shown to be true in medicine. Too many doctors leads to unnecessary health care (and it is not true that more health care directly leads to better health, above an optimum amount). You can see even see this within fields in medicine - the number of particular procedures that are performed has been shown to be highly correlated with how many of those specialists there are in that area and not correlated with any measurable risk of that disease.
Same is true in dentistry. They are real geniuses. Just a little fun fact for you. Regular adult dental exams and cleaning has not been shown to improve oral health. But it arose when the number of dentists started to exceed the number needed for indicated dental care. They were not about to sit around - they created a need for more dental care.
So, back to your point - do we need lawyers? That is too easy - of course we do. How many is a much, much harder question.*** There is nothing immoral, conspiratorial, or sinister about any of this. It is just normal human behavior to maximize their resources and station in life. The conclusion is that as a society, we have to limit the numbers of these professionals for optimal social benefit.


*I should know - I owned one. And I got rear-ended. Guess I dodged that bullet.
**how many hours are billed for this is another matter - but let's not go there.
***And now I will probably get trolled by lawyers, doctors, and dentists

[Bycrick]

Lestersails — I agree with a lot of the theory. The problem is the double-edged sword. Contingency fees lead to a bunch of maybe frivolous lawsuits. But for the guy who has a righteous beef and doesn’t have a $20k retainer …. then what?

Or the infamous class-action lawsuits, where a lawyer gathers 100000 people who have all been wronged just a little bit. If he wins, he gets millions and the plaintiffs get $10 each. But without these suits , the 100kmpeoplemhave no recourse at all and the defendant gets away scot free.

Or the case that was just in Nat Geographic about the woman who sued the plastic company in Texas and won $50 million in pollution claims. The downside? Do we really want any and every do-gooder suing anybody and everybody for a perceived wrong? It’s the same kind of law that’s involved in the Texas abortion battle.

There’s two sides to almost every argument.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

My look at the picture shows a raised edge, clearly visible.

That is not a hold edge. It's an inch or less. Nothing to hold. A normal height person couldn't hold onto the top counter edge for stability as they are down the stairs. Incredible how I'll informed arm chair critics blindly defend the indefensible. No grab points. No handrails. Sharp non protected step edges. In stark contrast to this catamaran manufacturers competition. I asked the broker who was showing me the boat ..... after I fell.... why didn't they have hand rails. She said they were going for a clean, modern look. Make of that what you want. If there was something to hold onto I would have. Try to conjure up places that I could have held onto if you insist. There were none. Having a grap rail would have given me something to which I could have used to brace my fall. The fall happened for other reasons but made worse by nothing to hold onto.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

no fiddle edge as you speak of. There's definitely nothing to hold towards the bottom.

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

That is not a hold edge. It's an inch or less. Nothing to hold. A normal height person couldn't hold onto the top counter edge for stability as they are down the stairs. Incredible how I'll informed arm chair critics blindly defend the indefensible. No grab points. No handrails. Sharp non protected step edges. In stark contrast to this catamaran manufacturers competition. I asked the broker who was showing me the boat ..... after I fell.... why didn't they have hand rails. She said they were going for a clean, modern look. Make of that what you want. If there was something to hold onto I would have. Try to conjure up places that I could have held onto if you insist. There were none. Having a grap rail would have given me something to which I could have used to brace my fall. The fall happened for other reasons but made worse by nothing to hold onto.

First there is no fiddle edge, then there is. No one said that it was suitable all the way down the steps, however it is there and is regularly used by some to brace themselves, on their boats.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Lestersails — I agree with a lot of the theory. The problem is the double-edged sword. Contingency fees lead to a bunch of maybe frivolous lawsuits. But for the guy who has a righteous beef and doesn’t have a $20k retainer …. then what?

Fair point. And I did not mean to suggest that there should be no plaintiff's attorneys nor would I suggest contingency fees are inherently bad. But too many of either is really bad, of that I am certain. How much is too much is a harder question.

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Or the infamous class-action lawsuits, where a lawyer gathers 100000 people who have all been wronged just a little bit. If he wins, he gets millions and the plaintiffs get $10 each. But without these suits , the 100kmpeoplemhave no recourse at all and the defendant gets away scot free.

Arrrgh - now there you have touched a nerve. It is infuriating when I get those cards in the mail that I am owed six bucks for some asinine class action lawsuit that Hertz perpetuated fraud on my car rental. I usually throw them in the trash. How about class action attorneys work for a not-for-profit law firm where they go after bad actors, the settlement goes into a fund that pays the attorney the hourly rate of a public defender and the rest goes to charity? I am kind of being silly here, but I agree with you that some of these suits do need to happen (read up on the DuPont and PFOA - it will make you {virtually} sick). There has to be a way to support these suits without them being get rich quick bonanzas for the lucky few.

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Or the case that was just in Nat Geographic about the woman who sued the plastic company in Texas and won $50 million in pollution claims. The downside? Do we really want any and every do-gooder suing anybody and everybody for a perceived wrong? It’s the same kind of law that’s involved in the Texas abortion battle.

There’s two sides to almost every argument.

Yes, indeed there are two sides to every argument, because if there weren't - it wouldn't be an argument

Tangent alert: What really irritates me is the phenomenon popularized by USAToday that makes it seem as though the two sides of every argument are equally valid. One paragraph that child molestation is horrible. One paragraph from some perv in Paris that it is beautiful. And there you have it - a balanced argument. Equal weight. What a pathetic editorial policy. This has now pervaded our culture. A lot of people harbor the bizarre delusion that everyone's opinion is equally valid. It isn't true.
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion"

Back to the OP and the topic of this thread. It is very hard to impossible for me to evaluate the merits of her position through a thread like this. However, as she has been told several times, she has already said too much. Interesting observation - we are only hearing her side of the story and if after hearing only one side of the story without even hearing the opposing side you are unconvinced - I'll place my bets on it being a lousy case (and an exploitation of the legal system). I ain't no judge or jury. Just saying where I'd put my $20.

[lestersails]

From post 42 and the photo, it looks suspiciously similar to a Lagoon I was sailing just a few weeks ago. Whether it is or not, I recall from the Lagoon 42 I chartered, that there we no handholds for the steps going down into the hulls. I recall that it was fairly straightforward to brace myself by simply pressing outward with both arms with my hands against the cabinetry that closely flanked the steps. I probably left some fingerprints or smudges, but too bad. Since it was plain to see there was no handhold, I adapted "one hand for the boat" to "two hands for the boat". I did this while under sail, in up to 8 foot (long period) seas, frequently*, without any difficulty. I could well appreciate that in truly rough seas**, that this might not be adequate to prevent a fall. But I always had the option to sit and shimmy down the steps on my keister. Far better to be on one's keister voluntarily than involuntarily.


*I am 65 so my visits to the head are not rare
**And for the record - I hate being on catamarans when the weather is snotty.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

First there is no fiddle edge, then there is. No one said that it was suitable all the way down the steps, however it is there and is regularly used by some to brace themselves, on their boats.

Not on this boats stairs.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by lestersails

From post 42 and the photo, it looks suspiciously similar to a Lagoon I was sailing just a few weeks ago. Whether it is or not, I recall from the Lagoon 42 I chartered, that there we no handholds for the steps going down into the hulls. I recall that it was fairly straightforward to brace myself by simply pressing outward with both arms with my hands against the cabinetry that closely flanked the steps. I probably left some fingerprints or smudges, but too bad. Since it was plain to see there was no handhold, I adapted "one hand for the boat" to "two hands for the boat". I did this while under sail, in up to 8 foot (long period) seas, frequently*, without any difficulty. I could well appreciate that in truly rough seas**, that this might not be adequate to prevent a fall. But I always had the option to sit and shimmy down the steps on my keister. Far better to be on one's keister voluntarily than involuntarily.


*I am 65 so my visits to the head are not rare
**And for the record - I hate being on catamarans when the weather is snotty.

I will not confirm or deny what boat it was. But I will ask you this. If you thought you were stepping out onto the hulls floor instead, there was a step to go, so you step out into thin air, having nothing to hold onto would have anyone crashing onto their back. Add that I am thinly framed and not so easy for me to have pressed against each side like you say. Whatever way you look at it, not safe at all. Why do the other catamaran builders have grab points and hand rails? Perhaps they see these as a safety thing?
There is something wrong when design takes precedence over safety.

I don't care what me raising this issue means for any may be lawsuit. Perhaps my broken back will be a warning for others to look beyond pretty designs and put safety as a higher priority.

Congratulations to the fine catamaran manufacturers who do the right thing. I thank them for taking into account user safety into their designs. If as I pray, I will heal to the point of being able to sail I know I have safe catamaran options. At the moment, though, I am struggling to deal with the pain. Lying in bed and living alone makes it worse. I'm not eating tonight because I can't move to fetch my own food. I only say that because perhaps some here should stop and think about what they are saying before attacking me. For me, this is not a theoretical debate. I am not doing well. �� I do not need sympathy. Likewise, I don't need finger-pointing and blame making. Some of you sound like the types who would blame the rape victim for daring to walk home on the street, and somehow, this is why she was raped. In some primitive societies this still happens believe it or not. Thank heavens that in the USA it hardly happens. But some of you here scare me. How easy you attack and blame me. No consideration at all of the contribution of the boat manufacturer in what is a nightmare for me. Thank you to others who have shown humanity. Thank you.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by dannc

I think you are bringing up the McDonald's scalding coffee law suit. McDonald's KNEW they were injuring people. They had had many, many complaints about the temperature of the coffee along with other lawsuits.

Why would McDonald's knowingly serve coffee too hot and that was injuring it's Customers? Simple. MONEY. McDonald's was advertising free coffee refills. To save MONEY, McDonald's kept the coffee at high temperature so people would not get FREE coffee.

I would seldom go to McDonald's back in the day, and even less so today, but years ago during the Free Coffee Promotion I was on vacation and went to a McDonald's for breakfast. The coffee burned my tongue and lips when I took a sip. I could not believe they were serving coffee that hot. When I asked for ICE, to cool down my coffee so I can actually drink said beverage, the McDonald's employee was not at all surprised at my request.

The lady that burned herself made a mistake anyone could make but she was only burned because McDonald's was knowngly serving scalding hot coffee to save a few pennies per Customer.

Later,
Dan

So people who want hot coffee, won't buy hot coffee if it's hot? There's some logical leaps.

They also got rid of the scalding hot fried pies...in Thialand currently and found they still have them. I'm an adult, if I can't wait until it cools down, I deserve to burn my mouth...who am I kidding, I did just the other day and it was so worth it but I'm not going to sue McDonalds over it.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So people who want hot coffee, won't buy hot coffee if it's hot? There's some logical leaps.

They also got rid of the scalding hot fried pies...in Thialand currently and found they still have them. I'm an adult, if I can't wait until it cools down, I deserve to burn my mouth...who am I kidding, I did just the other day and it was so worth it but I'm not going to sue McDonalds over it.

Please enlighten me on how wether or not you get scolded from a hot coffee or not has anything to do with my broken back.