This post is part of our coverage of the Listman v. OMC propeller injury trial

Robin Listman vs. Outboard Marine Corporation
Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe

14 November 2011 Session Two – 1pm

Our coverage was obtained via a video feed supplied by Courtroom View Network (CVN). The images are also courtesy of CVN.

This session focused on the sale of a propeller to the Porsows in August 2001 prior to the accident.

Testimony was heard from:

• Conrad Littigard – parts manager at Coltman Peters Marine in Reno in 2000

We heard from two attorneys:

• ____ for OMC
• Robert Frank Vaage (Bob Vaage) for Listmans

Conrad Littigard

OMC began the questioning of Conrad Littigard. He had owned a Sea Ray boat from about 1990 to 2009, then sold it because he thought the money did more good in his bank account than in the driveway.

They showed Conrad documents he had supplied them earlier showing the build sheet for the Porsow’s boat and them purchasing a propeller from Coltman Peters Marine in 2000. Conrad does not recall that specific sale. They often sold replacement propellers. Lake levels rose and fell depending on the snowfall. In late summer the lakes went down and boats hit things.

The sheet shows the new prop being 15 X 17 propeller with a 17 inch pitch, the old prop was a 14 1/2 X 19 propeller with a 19 inch pitch. Conrad explained that boaters sometimes change props looking for better performance. Some variables include altitude and size of the boat. 17 inch pitch was their most popular propeller.

Going down from a 19 inch pitch to a 17 inch pitch gives your boat more umph getting out of the hole, per Conrad

He never sold a prop guard.

Cross Examination of Conrad Littlegard by Robert Vaage for the Listmans

The original prop was an aluminum OMC propeller per the build sheet.

Vaage, “Can you confirm for us that the replacement propeller that was purchased there was an OMC propeller? Yes.

Conrad Littigard came across as a knowledgeable parts guy at the boat dealer. It is quite understandable that he did not remember the specific transaction. He did provide a deposition in the case several years ago but does not remember exactly why.

It seemed like OMC wanted to get it on record that the propeller that caused the accident was not the propeller the original boat was sold with. We are not sure what good that will do them, since the replacement propeller was an OMC propeller too. Perhaps they harbor thoughts of trying to bring Bombardier in if things go bad in this trial. Bombardier bought the drive portion of OMC’s business in early 2001 prior to the sale of this prop? Or maybe just claim it was not really OMC’s prop since they were already bankrupt by then.

They could not get other witnesses to come in right now and rescheduled to begin again at 4pm