Skip to main content

Steering Defect to Blame in $25 Million WaveRunner Verdict

The Daily Business Review reports in the case of Perez v. Yamaha Motor Corp. that a Palm Beach jury awarded two victims of a WaveRunner accident $25 Million against Yamaha Motor Corp, claiming product liability. On Easter weekend 2005, Jaysell Perez, 14 and her best friend, Samantha Archer, 15, borrowed a Yamaha WaveRunner scooter from a family friend. Archer approached a boat in the Intracoastal Waterway near Currie Park in West Palm Beach and took her hand off the throttle to begin a turn but instead of turning, the WaveRunner collided with the 30-foot boat. Perez died in the collision and Archer suffered severe injuries. The families filed separate lawsuits and the cases were combined for a single trial.

The plaintiffs claimed that Yamaha knew of steering problems but failed to provide a proper warning or redesign. From 1986-2000, owner's manuals warned beginners were likely to release the throttle when headed toward an obstacle. In 2001, the warning was removed--the girls rode a 2001 model. Yahama did not redesign its water scooter to address the steering issue until 2003. The jury was asked two design defect questions--whether the design is unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary consumer and whether the defect was the direct cause of the accident.

Jurors deliverated almost two days and approtioned 88 percent liability to Yamaha and 10 percent liability to Nicolette Archer, Samantha's mother, for giving the girls permission to use the WaveRunner. Samantha Archer and Holly were each apportioned 1 percent liability, reducing the $39.8 million jury award. The plaintiffs are expected to file motions for attorney's fees and costs and Yamaha is expected to appeal.

If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this verdict, please feel free to contact me at miamipandi@comcast.net, motero@houckanderson.com or via LinkedIn at
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michelleoterovaldes.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more