Product Defect Case Series
Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 955 P.2d 661 (1998).
Product: Yamaha Moto 4 four-wheel ATV.
Injury: Paralyzed from waist down
Mechanism of Injury: Moto 4 flipped.
Nature of Defect: Failure to warn.
Jury Verdict:
- $3,600,000
- $5,323,538.65 in 2016 value
Issue on appeal:
Product Defect Law Categories:
Result:
Full Case Text: Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 955 P.2d 661 (1998).
Case Quotes:
To establish a prima facie case of negligence or strict tort liability, a plaintiff must satisfy the element of proximate causation. This court has long recognized that to establish proximate causation “it must appear that the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence or wrongful act, and that it ought to have been foreseen in the light of the attending circumstances.” Crosman v. Southern Pacific Co., 42 Nev. 92, 108–09, 173 P. 223, 228 (1918) (citations omitted). Proximate causation is generally an issue of fact for the jury to resolve. Nehls v. Leonard, 97 Nev. 325, 328, 630 P.2d 258, 260 (1981).
Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 238, 955 P.2d 661, 664-65 (1998)
Nevada law requires that warnings adequately communicate any dangers that may flow from the use or foreseeable misuse of a *239 product. Fyssakis v. Knight Equipment Corp., 108 Nev. 212, 214, 826 P.2d 570, 571–72 (1992).
Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 238-39, 955 P.2d 661, 665 (1998)
This court has articulated the conditions under which such liability may be established:
Where the defendant has reason to anticipate that danger may result from a particular use of his product, and he fails to warn adequately of such a danger, the product sold without a warning is in a defective condition. Strict liability may be imposed even where the product is faultlessly made, if it was unreasonably dangerous to place the product in the hands of the consumer without adequate warnings concerning its safe and proper use. Oak Grove Investors v. Bell & Gossett Co., 99 Nev. 616, 624, 668 P.2d 1075, 1080 (1983).3
Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 239, 955 P.2d 661, 665 (1998)
We conclude that the warnings issue was sufficiently developed for submission to the jury with competent evidence. While there were warnings against jumping, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the warnings were inadequate to advise the novice user of how jumping could be avoided **666 while using the vehicle as depicted (i.e., over rough desert terrain within the speed capabilities of the vehicle).
Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 240, 955 P.2d 661, 665-66 (1998)
Yamaha correctly notes that it was not required to warn against dangers that are generally known. General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 365, 498 P.2d 366, 369 (1972). However, Arnoult presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that her use of the ATV was foreseeable and potentially dangerous to the novice, and that it was not generally known that a novice rider could sustain serious injuries when operating the vehicle as described by the witnesses. It was also foreseeable that a rider would emulate the depiction in the owner's manual of a rider climbing a hill with a thirty-degree slope at half-throttle. Further, for the reasons stated, using the ATV in this manner does not constitute abuse or misuse of the vehicle.
Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 241, 955 P.2d 661, 666 (1998)
