Originally Posted by cardiacpaul
Am I the only one here???
"Victorian Coroner, Peter White, found the boat had faulty tanks and fuel lines, and exploded when the engine was started. He found Mr O'Hare knew of the poor condition of the boats tanks and the probable contamination of the fuel lines before he sold it. He said Mr O'Hare had understood the boat's safety was compromised and failed in his duty to inform the buyers."
lemme guess, no survey, no "caveat emptor"
Yes, the p.o. SHOULD have said something. But he didn't. So, lets make it someone elses fault.
Imagine buying a used car, run it up the road and one of the wheels falls off. Is the the p.o's fault you didn't check the lug nuts yourself?
A quick check of the fuel system might have bought a discount... It surly would have kept the darn thing from going ka-boom
There is a term used in law (at least where I come from) called latent defect. That generally refers to faults inherent in a product that the seller was aware of and did not declare. In many cases it is just a matter of financial redress which is sometimes problematic for the new owner.
But in cases where it causes injury or death, criminal charges against the knowing seller are guaranteed
to follow. And IMHO so they should. Selling any piece of equipment knowing that there is a good chance that someone may die using it is seriously dodgy.
The article says that the boat exploded "just hours" after the sale. Seemingly on it's 1st refuel by the new owner. If the tank was near empty when the boat when it was handed over (or if/when it was surveyed) and it probably was, it is fair to assume that a fuel leak was probably not evident at that point.
So as far as I am concerned it is clearly the sellers fault.