Yamaha wins another court case!!
#1
08-02-2010, 08:17 AM
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yamaha wins another court case!!
I posted this in the General UTV section, but wanted to be sure you Rhino peeps saw it, too! You all know Yamaha has been dealing with tons of rediculous lawsuits from people who drive their Rhinos like idiots and then want to get some money for their stupidity.....well, looks like a jury in CA realized that it's not the OEM's fault when people get dumb.....unanimous decision in favor of Yamaha - let's just hope this is a continuing trend!! 
Motorcycle News
After a four month trial in the Orange County Superior Court Civil Complex Division, the jury returned a 12 - 0 unanimous defense verdict in the first of 174 California consolidated cases involving the Yamaha Rhino off-road vehicle. Richard B. Holt, Plaintiff vs. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America, Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. Superior Court of California, for the County of Orange - Civil Complex Center, Case No. 06CC11291, Judge Thierry Colaw presiding.
Plaintiff Richard Holt alleged that defects in his 2005 Rhino 660 vehicle caused his April 1, 2006 crash in which he tipped his vehicle onto its side resulting in an open compound fracture of his left tibia and fibula. Plaintiff claimed that the Rhino lacked adequate stability, doors for lower extremity protection and sufficient warnings.
Yamaha defended its design and warnings, contending that Mr. Holt caused his crash and injury by aggressive and impaired driving and by failing to wear a seat belt. Plaintiff denied aggressive driving and impairment and claimed he was wearing his seat belt.
Plaintiff's evidence focused on Yamaha's post-sale actions including a September 2006 supplemental labeling campaign, voluntary side panel door offer in August 2007 and a March 2009 CPSC voluntary repair program that included increasing the rear track width of the vehicle.
Yamaha defended the Rhino as a safe and defect free vehicle sold with appropriate warnings and instructions that, if followed, would have prevented plaintiff's incident. Plaintiff sought over $1 million in compensatory damages and an unspecified amount of punitive damages.
This first "bellwether" trial was closely watched by lawyers with other cases involving the Yamaha Rhino. Approximately 174 California Rhino matters are consolidated in the Orange County Superior Court, with another 271 cases consolidated in a federal MDL in the Western District of Kentucky, and 130 cases pending in a consolidated action in Gwinnett County, Georgia.
Yamaha's lead counsel, Paul Cereghini, of the national product liability defense firm, Bowman and Brooke LLP commented on the verdict:
"In returning this unanimous verdict, the jury rejected every one of plaintiff's claims. This verdict sends a clear message that the Yamaha Rhino is a safe, well-designed and defect free off-road vehicle."
Plaintiff's case went to verdict on claims for strict product liability, negligent product design, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, failure to recall and punitive damages. The jury's general verdict for Yamaha rejects all of these causes of action.
Plaintiff's witnesses included design engineer Mr. James Williams from Fenton, Michigan; handling and stability engineer Micky Gilbert from Wheat Ridge, Colorado; seat belt biomechanic, Mr. Louis D'Aulerio from Penns Park, Pennsylvania; former NHTSA employee and biomechanic Dr. Michael Kleinberger from Clarksville, Maryland; former CPSC employee Mr. William Kitzes of Boca Raton, Florida, accident reconstructionist Mr. Ronald Carr of San Diego, California; impairment psychologist Dr. Dary Fiorentino from Van Nuys, California; economist Ms. Stephanie Rizzardi from Pasadena, California; and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Jonathan Nissanoff from Poway, California.
Yamaha's witnesses included engineer Mr. Kevin Breen from Fort Myers, Florida; human factors engineer Dr. Alan Dorris from Atlanta, Georgia; engineer Robert Larson from Phoenix, Arizona; seat belt engineer Mr. Eddie Cooper from Phoenix, Arizona; biomechanic Dr. Harry Smith from San Antonio, Texas; biomechanic Dr. Robert Piziali from San Carlos, California; accident reconstructionist Dr. Graeme Fowler from Phoenix, Arizona; forensic toxicologist Mr. Martin Breen from Tustin, California and vehicle design engineer Lee Carr from Houston, Texas.
Plaintiff was represented by Scott Nealey of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP in San Francisco and Anthony J. Klein of Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP in Bakersfield, California. Mr. Nealey and Mr. Klein represent plaintiffs in hundreds of Rhino matters and their firms have leadership positions in the California consolidation and the federal MDL actions. At times Mr. Nealey and Mr. Klein were assisted at trial by Gary Logan of Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP in Bakersfield.
Yamaha was represented by its lead counsel Paul Cereghini of Bowman and Brooke in Phoenix, Arizona and by Thomas Branigan of Bowman and Brooke in Detroit. Mr. Cereghini and Mr. Branigan have leadership roles in the California consolidation and the federal MDL actions. Mr. Cereghini and Mr. Branigan were assisted at trial by Jeffrey Warren of Bowman and Brooke in Phoenix, Arizona and by Mr. Brian Gabel of the Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. Legal Department.
Motorcycle News
After a four month trial in the Orange County Superior Court Civil Complex Division, the jury returned a 12 - 0 unanimous defense verdict in the first of 174 California consolidated cases involving the Yamaha Rhino off-road vehicle. Richard B. Holt, Plaintiff vs. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America, Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. Superior Court of California, for the County of Orange - Civil Complex Center, Case No. 06CC11291, Judge Thierry Colaw presiding.
Plaintiff Richard Holt alleged that defects in his 2005 Rhino 660 vehicle caused his April 1, 2006 crash in which he tipped his vehicle onto its side resulting in an open compound fracture of his left tibia and fibula. Plaintiff claimed that the Rhino lacked adequate stability, doors for lower extremity protection and sufficient warnings.
Yamaha defended its design and warnings, contending that Mr. Holt caused his crash and injury by aggressive and impaired driving and by failing to wear a seat belt. Plaintiff denied aggressive driving and impairment and claimed he was wearing his seat belt.
Plaintiff's evidence focused on Yamaha's post-sale actions including a September 2006 supplemental labeling campaign, voluntary side panel door offer in August 2007 and a March 2009 CPSC voluntary repair program that included increasing the rear track width of the vehicle.
Yamaha defended the Rhino as a safe and defect free vehicle sold with appropriate warnings and instructions that, if followed, would have prevented plaintiff's incident. Plaintiff sought over $1 million in compensatory damages and an unspecified amount of punitive damages.
This first "bellwether" trial was closely watched by lawyers with other cases involving the Yamaha Rhino. Approximately 174 California Rhino matters are consolidated in the Orange County Superior Court, with another 271 cases consolidated in a federal MDL in the Western District of Kentucky, and 130 cases pending in a consolidated action in Gwinnett County, Georgia.
Yamaha's lead counsel, Paul Cereghini, of the national product liability defense firm, Bowman and Brooke LLP commented on the verdict:
"In returning this unanimous verdict, the jury rejected every one of plaintiff's claims. This verdict sends a clear message that the Yamaha Rhino is a safe, well-designed and defect free off-road vehicle."
Plaintiff's case went to verdict on claims for strict product liability, negligent product design, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, failure to recall and punitive damages. The jury's general verdict for Yamaha rejects all of these causes of action.
Plaintiff's witnesses included design engineer Mr. James Williams from Fenton, Michigan; handling and stability engineer Micky Gilbert from Wheat Ridge, Colorado; seat belt biomechanic, Mr. Louis D'Aulerio from Penns Park, Pennsylvania; former NHTSA employee and biomechanic Dr. Michael Kleinberger from Clarksville, Maryland; former CPSC employee Mr. William Kitzes of Boca Raton, Florida, accident reconstructionist Mr. Ronald Carr of San Diego, California; impairment psychologist Dr. Dary Fiorentino from Van Nuys, California; economist Ms. Stephanie Rizzardi from Pasadena, California; and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Jonathan Nissanoff from Poway, California.
Yamaha's witnesses included engineer Mr. Kevin Breen from Fort Myers, Florida; human factors engineer Dr. Alan Dorris from Atlanta, Georgia; engineer Robert Larson from Phoenix, Arizona; seat belt engineer Mr. Eddie Cooper from Phoenix, Arizona; biomechanic Dr. Harry Smith from San Antonio, Texas; biomechanic Dr. Robert Piziali from San Carlos, California; accident reconstructionist Dr. Graeme Fowler from Phoenix, Arizona; forensic toxicologist Mr. Martin Breen from Tustin, California and vehicle design engineer Lee Carr from Houston, Texas.
Plaintiff was represented by Scott Nealey of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP in San Francisco and Anthony J. Klein of Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP in Bakersfield, California. Mr. Nealey and Mr. Klein represent plaintiffs in hundreds of Rhino matters and their firms have leadership positions in the California consolidation and the federal MDL actions. At times Mr. Nealey and Mr. Klein were assisted at trial by Gary Logan of Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP in Bakersfield.
Yamaha was represented by its lead counsel Paul Cereghini of Bowman and Brooke in Phoenix, Arizona and by Thomas Branigan of Bowman and Brooke in Detroit. Mr. Cereghini and Mr. Branigan have leadership roles in the California consolidation and the federal MDL actions. Mr. Cereghini and Mr. Branigan were assisted at trial by Jeffrey Warren of Bowman and Brooke in Phoenix, Arizona and by Mr. Brian Gabel of the Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. Legal Department.
#2
08-02-2010, 10:49 AM
#3
08-02-2010, 12:57 PM
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the VAST majority of these lawsuits stem from people either not wearing seatbelts, helmets, having kids driving them, doing do-nuts, driving impaired, etc.....it's just frustrating for us consumers who use these vehicles the way they were meant to be used, and enjoy the sport. I love my Rhino....I have taken it places I would never take my quads! The Rhino started the whole UTV industry, and I am happy to see Yamaha standing up for themselves!
The Rhino started the whole UTV industry, and I am happy to see Yamaha standing up for themselves!
#4
08-13-2010, 04:15 PM
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two more cases won this past week - Yamaha has some awesome momentum! I hope that seeing these "YAMAHA WON ANOTHER ONE" posts are so common that people start getting sick of seeing them - lol!!! I continue to have faith in mankind.....these are JURY trials....very impressive!
FOURTH JURY VERDICT FOR YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A.,
JURY IN ALABAMA REJECTS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS REGARDING YAMAHA RHINO
Yamaha Statement on Mathis vs Yamaha Decision in Alexander City (Tallapoosa County), AL
CYPRESS, CA – AUGUST 12, 2010 – A jury in Tallapoosa County, Alabama today rejected the plaintiff’s claims and returned a unanimous defense verdict for Yamaha in Mathis vs Yamaha, a case involving an accident on a Yamaha Rhino in Alexander City, Alabama. This verdict in favor of Yamaha is the second in 24 hours and marks the fourth time a jury has rejected plaintiff’s claims regarding the Rhino’s design, finding no defect in the Rhino.
Yamaha is saddened whenever anyone is injured in an accident involving a Yamaha product and the accident in this case underscores the importance of following the safety guidelines posted on the Rhino and in the owner’s manual, and to always operate the products in a safe and responsible manner. Drivers and passengers should wear helmets, protective gear including over-the-ankle foot wear, and the vehicle’s three-point seat belts at all times.
The Rhino is a safe and useful off-road vehicle that has won virtually every “first in class” award and top safety ratings in independent reviews since its introduction.
Yamaha stands firmly behind the Rhino and will continue to vigorously defend the product. To learn more about the Yamaha Rhino, visit our website Truth About Rhino
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Statement
on Lewis/Hernandez vs Yamaha Trial Verdict in San Bernardino County, CA
Third Trial Verdict in Favor of Yamaha; Jury Finds No Product Defect with Yamaha Rhino
CYPRESS, Calif. – AUGUST 11, 2010 – A jury in San Bernardino County, California has rejected the plaintiff’s claims and awarded no damages today in this case involving an accident on a Yamaha Rhino. This follows another jury decision in favor of Yamaha on July 26, 2010 in a case in Orange County, California, and is the third time a jury has rejected plaintiff’s claims regarding the Rhino’s design, finding no defect in the Rhino.
The jury made a decision based on the facts. The testimony and evidence during the trial showed that this unfortunate incident had nothing to do with the design of the product. Yamaha is saddened whenever anyone is injured in an accident involving a Yamaha product and this incident underscores the importance of following the safety guidelines posted on the Rhino and in the owner’s manual, and to always operate the products in a safe and responsible manner. Drivers and passengers should wear helmets, protective gear including over-the-ankle foot wear, and the vehicle’s three-point seat belts at all times.
The Rhino is a safe and useful off-road vehicle that has won virtually every “first in class” award and top safety ratings in independent reviews since its introduction.
Yamaha stands firmly behind the Rhino and will continue to vigorously defend the product. To learn more about the Yamaha Rhino, visit our website Truth About Rhino.
FOURTH JURY VERDICT FOR YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A.,
JURY IN ALABAMA REJECTS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS REGARDING YAMAHA RHINO
Yamaha Statement on Mathis vs Yamaha Decision in Alexander City (Tallapoosa County), AL
CYPRESS, CA – AUGUST 12, 2010 – A jury in Tallapoosa County, Alabama today rejected the plaintiff’s claims and returned a unanimous defense verdict for Yamaha in Mathis vs Yamaha, a case involving an accident on a Yamaha Rhino in Alexander City, Alabama. This verdict in favor of Yamaha is the second in 24 hours and marks the fourth time a jury has rejected plaintiff’s claims regarding the Rhino’s design, finding no defect in the Rhino.
Yamaha is saddened whenever anyone is injured in an accident involving a Yamaha product and the accident in this case underscores the importance of following the safety guidelines posted on the Rhino and in the owner’s manual, and to always operate the products in a safe and responsible manner. Drivers and passengers should wear helmets, protective gear including over-the-ankle foot wear, and the vehicle’s three-point seat belts at all times.
The Rhino is a safe and useful off-road vehicle that has won virtually every “first in class” award and top safety ratings in independent reviews since its introduction.
Yamaha stands firmly behind the Rhino and will continue to vigorously defend the product. To learn more about the Yamaha Rhino, visit our website Truth About Rhino
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Statement
on Lewis/Hernandez vs Yamaha Trial Verdict in San Bernardino County, CA
Third Trial Verdict in Favor of Yamaha; Jury Finds No Product Defect with Yamaha Rhino
CYPRESS, Calif. – AUGUST 11, 2010 – A jury in San Bernardino County, California has rejected the plaintiff’s claims and awarded no damages today in this case involving an accident on a Yamaha Rhino. This follows another jury decision in favor of Yamaha on July 26, 2010 in a case in Orange County, California, and is the third time a jury has rejected plaintiff’s claims regarding the Rhino’s design, finding no defect in the Rhino.
The jury made a decision based on the facts. The testimony and evidence during the trial showed that this unfortunate incident had nothing to do with the design of the product. Yamaha is saddened whenever anyone is injured in an accident involving a Yamaha product and this incident underscores the importance of following the safety guidelines posted on the Rhino and in the owner’s manual, and to always operate the products in a safe and responsible manner. Drivers and passengers should wear helmets, protective gear including over-the-ankle foot wear, and the vehicle’s three-point seat belts at all times.
The Rhino is a safe and useful off-road vehicle that has won virtually every “first in class” award and top safety ratings in independent reviews since its introduction.
Yamaha stands firmly behind the Rhino and will continue to vigorously defend the product. To learn more about the Yamaha Rhino, visit our website Truth About Rhino.
#5
08-13-2010, 04:27 PM
Extreme Pro Rider
Mopar Man!
Mopar Man!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Colorado Springs Co
Posts: 6,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#7
11-09-2010, 08:52 PM
Trending Topics
#9
12-09-2010, 12:14 PM
Supersock
Hired Gun!
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
Hired Gun!
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
Got to test ride a commander 1000x a couple of weeks back. Of course it was sponsored by CanAm, so all the stuff they had to say about it was positive. Guy in charge of the demo said several times for us to go easy on the corners. Ground was very tacky, and rolling it over could happen if you weren't careful. Figure it was more to keep from ruining the demo model for others than safety. 
#10
12-09-2010, 01:35 PM
