You caught my attention with news of this unbelievably dangerous product. l am compelled to write a few comments.
Law school forever engrained in my mind the concept of a “reasonable man” standard. If you cause an injury, your conduct will be judged based on a comparison with the conduct of the mythical reasonable man. The reasonable man is a legal construct for incredibly safe behavior. For example, a reasonable man would never refuel his mower by transferring gasoline while it is parked in the garage. Instead, the reasonable man would first push the tractor well away from the house, attach a grounding clip to a clean and bright metal surface of the chassis, the plastic fuel tank and a proper grounding rod driven deep into the soil. He would also wear hearing protection, eye protecting, heavy long pants, protective footwear, long sleeves and gloves while mowing. Without a doubt, no children would be allowed within 100 foot radius of the mower. In addition, a reasonable man would not wear open toed sandals or shorts while operating a mower.
The tractor shown in the photos is probably overloaded – full size operator plus two kids and “accessory” – probably adds another 100 pounds. Overloaded machine is dangerous - excess weight changes the dynamics of the machine and increases likelihood of breakdown or other failure leading to a dangerous condition. Query - what is the weight limit for this accessory? How was the weight limit established? What safety margin provided?
Tree branches and other hazards may miss the operator and strike the passengers. Crushing hazards associated with operating the tractor in reverse. Others before me have already raised the issues of seatbelts and roll-over protection systems.
Manufacturer probably includes language in the operators manual admonishing the use of non-authorized accessories. Such language may or may not protect the manufacturer/distributor from liability for unauthorized accessory. One question that would likely be explored in a products liability suit would address foreseeability – could the manufacturer/distributor foresee that somebody would install such a contraption? In any event, a plaintiff lawyer may look at the pretty homes appearing in the photos and decide that our guy has some assets worthy of attachment.
Do not be impressed by the miss-spelled reference to a patent – safety and manufacturer liability are not part of the standards for granting a patent.
Don’t forget to recognize the difference between common sense and good sense. Common sense is often a product of the times (cyclists w/out helmets, riders in a pick-up box, un-belted kids in a car, smoking, unprotected sex and many more) – good sense is timeless.
See ya.
