Comments on: Suit: it’s the manufacturer’s fault that I backed a lawn mower over my son

By: steve

steve — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:04:34 +0000

RIO stands for reverse implement option, right?

Is it at all possible that there could be other things where you would want to use this option other than mowing?

The ONLY reason no one wants you to mow backwards is the fact that people do not actually clear the area BEFORE they even move. We all do it.

Almost all of the small lawn tractors move fast enough and turn tight enough that, if my son were walking behind me while going forward and I turned a tight circle, I could EASILY be in a position to run him over before I know it.

I absolutely do not blame or ridicule only this guy for this happening. I will forever blame and ridicule the lawyers, and, to a much smaller extent, people like this, for bringing suit. There will always be people, and you know who you are, who wil always sue. they’ll justify it with the the argument that “you never know, there could be something dangerous about it.” Of course there something dangerous about it! That’s why you must take care!

That’s life! Take a little more time when mowing and pay more attention!

They really need to add an option where a guy just sits there and WHACKS you in the back of your head each time you do it wrong, and then you’ll learn.

We need to bring back stick shifts only and teach people to be able to do more than just hold on when driving/moving/operating anything.

How many people out there with older tractors turn off the blades when getting off to move something while mowing? I do. EVERY time! Parking brake and neutral too. For some people, doing it right is just too inconvenient. Better to just cut corners and blame someone else later.

For the record, I really think that the lawyers and courts are the enablers of this type of folly. I could just as easily be swayed to sue in my grief. Especially if I did this to my own child.

Well, we all pay more for things because of it. Just look at the small, private plane industry-or what’s left of it. My dad actually thought about buying a Beachcraft Bonanza. It took 3 years to find one that he liked-very picky-and, by then, the price had gone form $75,000 to almost $300,000! Is that what you really want for ALL the things we buy?

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:26:45 +0000

Those of you who are ripping this man for the ACCIDENT he had need to grow up.

The man is not being “ripped” for the accident he had. He is being ripped for trying to blame the accident on others. It was he who backed over his child – not John Deere. It was he who despite warnings to not mow while backing up, decided that he would not heed the warnings – not John Deere.

If you are in the power equiptment industry, you know well that the reason that people do not disengage the mower is that it is time consuming, and places greater wear and tear on the drive belts, pulleys, and bearings. In other words, people put the saving time and a few bucks over safety. The guy in the article, and apparantly you, want John Deere to to make the decisions that you and the man refuse to make. You want to blame them for allowing you to make intelligent choices when circumstances allow, and instead want them to make a decision for you in all circumstances.

Nevins’ comment is spot on.

By: nevins

nevins — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:34:26 +0000

Pjhannon certainly has a lot of things he wishes to call stupid. But he neglects to blame the one who overrode the backup safety device then failed to notice his child behind him. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. But I’m not talking about the machine.

By: Pat Hannon

Pat Hannon — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:51:12 +0000

I would like to add to my post. I do not know how the Deere over-ride works.
I do know how the Cub Cadet over-ride worked. They may have improved it.
On the Cub Cadets I owned the switch on the left of the instrument pannel that turned the mower on was also the switch to over ride the no cut in reverse feature. You simply pulled the switch out about an 1/8 of an inch and pushed it up and the mower would continue to run while you went into reverse. I would be able to actuate that feature with no thought process, no thinking at all. I used it so often that it became part of my subconsious as I trimmed around trees, bushes etc.
I would compare it to mastering a 2 wheeled bicycle. There are lots of motions involved with riding the bycycle that no one thinks about. It becomes subconsious thought patterns that we can not explain, can not teach but can repeat every time we ride the bicycle. Over riding the back up feature becomes one of those sub consious acts. It is not that we were not warned. It is that we get so used to over-riding that it is not on the aware consious level. And kids are still getting cut up. THERE SHOULD BE NO OVERIDE.
Pat

By: Pat Hannon

Pat Hannon — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:31:47 +0000

I was one of the original Cub Cadet dealers in the USA. My family owned a large International Harvester Dealership. Over the 35 years we operated the dealership we had a number of customers maimed, killed or hurt by equipment. Equipment is dangerous. That is a fact. Cub Cadet had a law suite some time in the 70’s that started the no cut in reverse mechanics. They also offered a way to over ride the feature. That was and is stupid. I was cutting my lawn with a 1250 cub cadet. I came to some bushes and had to back up. I used the over ride switch feature to keep the mower running and through it in reverse. My youngest son who was born in 1979 was walking behind me and I did not know it. I drove the tractor in reverse on top of him but because the tractor was not backing smoothly like it should I shoved the hydro to nuetral. I found my son under the tractor. The blades did not get to him, but a few inches…….
I am upset that there is an over ride on the no cut in reverse feature. That is just plain stupid. Also, the ability to lift the mower guards is stupid. Every mower I drive by has the shield held up by a tarp strap or they are even removed. STUPID
One of my customers was an eye surgeon. He blinded his daughter with a piece of wire thrown by his woods L59 mower under a cub lowboy. No law suit because he himself had turned the shield which was designed to be down to up. The shield was worthless.
Those of you who are ripping this man for the ACCIDENT he had need to grow up. As a person who has been in the equipment business for 55 years the builders of the equipment could do a much better job at safety.
In fact some of the rules and features standard in Europe are about to hit the farm equipment in the USA forced by the Feds. Brake laws on heavy equipment is one area I am familiar with. At present much of the heavy towed farm equipment in the USA do not have brakes on the equipment.
Welcome to America
I would be glad to share my experiences with anyone I can help related to these problems. I grew up around the equipment business starting in 1954 and am still working in it full time. I will list my email here. I am not sure if that is allowed but I am fired up about the postings I have read. Grow up.
pjhannon@csinet.net
La Porte, Indiana

By: Alan Kellogg

Alan Kellogg — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:43:59 +0000

To go along with the Darwin Awards I would like to propose the Wallace Awards, named after Russell Wallace, who worked out a theory of evolution via natural selection at the same time Charles Darwin did. The Wallace Awards to be awarded to the person who succeeded in remove his genes from the gene pool by eliminating his progeny through an act of stupidity.

Not just any act of stupidity, but an act of stupidity so blatant and so spectacular as to leave those who witness it, or hear of it, in no doubt that the perpetrator is no doubt too stupid to breed. Just letting Junior ride in the stern of your power boat wouldn’t cut it. Letting Junior ride in the stern of your power boat as he transfers gasoline from gas can to 2 liter soda bottle would.

The Russell Awards, for when a fellow’s idiocy means the end of his gene line at a remove.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:07:35 +0000

OBQuiet,
I got the humor in your statement and didn’t take offense. This is kind of a sore subject with me.

By: Jason Barney

Jason Barney — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:17:46 +0000

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:49:14 +0000

Was this mower in any way contributing to global warming…err, I mean climate change? Might also we have another claim? Was is a green mower? (Not like John Deere but like His Holiness Alfons Gore).

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:30:23 +0000

@19: What I wonder is, now that these are available, will manufacturers be held liable for backing-up accidents if they don’t make these obligatory?

Bill, one saw a similar sequence in the sudden acceleration cases. Manufacturers started installing shift-interlocks to reduce the chances of sudden acceleration. In 1997, I represented an auto manufacturer in a sudden acceleration case where a little old lady had driven her auto into a crowd of 31 people or so; we expected the usual allegations of magical magnetic rays and stuck throttles (after all, that’s what the Nader groups were suggesting to the New York Times) when suddenly the plaintiffs admitted that the little old lady had hit the wrong pedal, but blamed the manufacturer for failure to warn and failure to retrofit the auto with a shift-interlock.

So, it is perhaps inevitable that trial lawyers will seek to blame a back-up injury on the failure to make the $350 rear-camera option mandatory.