How is this a safety device??

[swines]

It's really an anti-lawsuit device. Here's who you can thank for not being able to easily mow in reverse.

In 2007, Corey Nicklin backed over his three year old son Conor, while mowing the lawn with his John Deere L120.

In 2008, he sued John Deere and Home Depot because:

The subject lawn mower is defectively designed in that it should have been designed in a manner that does not allow for the mower to be operated with its blades moving in reverse

The complaint also stated:

Defendant John Deere failed to adequately warn of the dangers of mowing in reverse in that the label on the subject lawn mower that reads DO NOT MOW IN REVERSE is non-commonsensical and ineffective because the subject lawn mower allows for the operator to mow in reverse.

The Owner's Manual contains the following:

CAUTION: Avoid injury! Rotating blades are dangerous. Children or bystanders may be injured by run over and rotating blades.

Before backing up, carefully check the area around the machine.

NOTE: Backing up while the mower is engaged is strongly discouraged. The Reverse Implement Option should be used only when operating another attachment or when the operator deems it necessary to reposition the machine with the mower engaged.

1. Stop forward travel.

2. Look behind the machine to be sure there are no bystanders.

Perhaps the warning label should have been worded more specifically and said, "Your three-year-old son Conor" rather than just "children."

In the face of this kind of stupidity and personal negligence facilitated by tort lawyers, if you were a manufacturer, what would you do?

 

[Poopdeck Pappy]

My John Deere GT235e had the knob you had to pull up to keep the PTO engaged when you went into reverse. At first it was an annoyance, and then I got used to it and it never bothered me again. It just became 2nd nature to use, so I never bothered trying to defeat it.

Keep in mind that you don't have to hold the knob up the whole time you're in reverse. You just have to hold it up before you start to reverse, and then let it go after you're going in reverse.

 

[k0ua]

It's really an anti-lawsuit device. Here's who you can thank for not being able to easily mow in reverse.

In 2007, Corey Nicklin backed over his three year old son Conor, while mowing the lawn with his John Deere L120.

In 2008, he sued John Deere and Home Depot because:



The complaint also stated:


The Owner's Manual contains the following:



Perhaps the warning label should have been worded more specifically and said, "Your three-year-old son Conor" rather than just "children."

In the face of this kind of stupidity and personal negligence facilitated by tort lawyers, if you were a manufacturer, what would you do?

I would put on a RIO button.

 

[beenthere]

I believe the first suit was years before that with Sears Craftsman... early 90's I'm thinking.

$12 Million Awarded To Girl Hurt By Mower The Girl, Now 5, Lost A Leg After The 1993 Accident In Eagleville. Sears And The Manufacturer Were Sued. - philly-archives

 

[Gary Fowler]

I have seen systems on Z turns that would either kill the engine when both levers were pulled to the rear, or would disengage the pto when both levers were pulled to reverse.

I don't have kids to worry about and I for sure would defeat any device on my zero turn that killed the engine when pulling both levers in reverse or killed the mower. If I have a small spot to finish mowing many times I will back up to mow in reverse back and forth rather than spin 180 every 5 feet.

Killing the engine would really piss me off too since I always idle down for a few minutes before killing the engine and I never engage the mower at full throttle. Sounds like the designer of that system gave no consideration to the affect it has on the equipment.

 

[4570Man]

The "safety" system I have found to be the most dangerous is having to put a HST tractor in neutral to start it. I have only encountered this stupid safety on Deere tractors. I can park my HST tractor on a hill and fail to set the parking brake and it's not going anywhere at least not very fast. Guess what happens when you put it in neutral. You didn't have to depress the brake. Just put it in neutral and shut off the PTO.

 

[4570Man]

It's really an anti-lawsuit device. Here's who you can thank for not being able to easily mow in reverse. In 2007, Corey Nicklin backed over his three year old son Conor, while mowing the lawn with his John Deere L120. In 2008, he sued John Deere and Home Depot because: The complaint also stated: The Owner's Manual contains the following: Perhaps the warning label should have been worded more specifically and said, "Your three-year-old son Conor" rather than just "children." In the face of this kind of stupidity and personal negligence facilitated by tort lawyers, if you were a manufacturer, what would you do?

Not entirely true. My Cub Cadet which was older than 2007 was equipped with this "safety" feature. I'm not disagreeing with the reasoning, but this case wasn't the entire cause of it.

 

[Richard001]

I remember reading about some guys that had the brilliant idea that they could pick up a walk behind mower and use it as a hedge trimmer.

After the loss of several fingers, they sued the manufacture. That’s why you now see labels reminding you not to put your feet or hands under the mower.

Now this may be a urban legend, I don’t know for sure, but I think that after several beers, that this idea made perfect sense to these guys.

Richard

 

[swines]

I would put on a RIO button.

In the Home Depot / John Deere case cited, the L120 had an RIO switch. The person still managed to back over his three year old son with the mower engaged.

 

[k0ua]

In the Home Depot / John Deere case cited, the L120 had an RIO switch. The person still managed to back over his three year old son with the mower engaged.

Well, some things just can't be fixed.