Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-2281, Section "1" (2)
October 31, 2002
Before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure submitted by Defendants, Yamaha Motor Corporation. The Court, having heard the oral arguments of the parties at hearing, having considered the record, the evidence, the applicable law, and the memoranda submitted by the parties, is now ready to rule.
I. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS PROCEDURE
In July, 2000, a group of friends traveled down to the Cayman Islands in order to meet up with some friends that they had made years before in China. On July 26, 2000, the deceased, Rodney St. Pierre, and three other people rented a dinghy and rowed it from their hotel to a point several hundred yards out into the water. The four passengers located the dinghy close to a popular dive spot. At the same time, another group of travelers also associated with the reunion rented two YAMAHA WAVE RUNNERS from a rental business located down the beach. A `WaveRunner' is a type of small personal watercraft which is powered by water jets located under the boat. These personal watercraft typically carry two or three passengers. Ross Holzle took his son, Brett, 17, Alexandra Maingot (Alex), 14, Angel Arciniegas, an adult, and his son, Max, 10, to rent two wave runners. Brett and Alex rode one WaveRunner while Angel and Max occupied the other one. The owner of the rental facility, James Henderson, gave each of the riders instructions about how to start, stop, and operate the WaveRunner. Alex had never operated a WaveRunner prior to the day in question.
The two WaveRunners traveled to the area of the dive spot and the dinghy. As they approached, Brett exchanged pleasantries with the four people who were sitting in the dinghy. Brett started to leave the site, but then stopped the wave runner, and exchanged places with Alex. permitting her to drive. At this point there is much dispute about how exactly the WaveRunner approached the dinghy and about the exact path taken by the WaveRunner, but as the wave runner started, with Alex driving, it was pointed directly at the dinghy. Alex, possibly in a panicked state, grabbed the throttle and ran the WaveRunner over the dinghy, injuring three of the passengers and killing Rodney St. Pierre. Several witnesses have stated in their depositions that the WaveRunner was traveling at close to maximum speed upon impact. Brett was yelling at Alex to turn or stop the wave runner, both of which were instructions that she had received from Mr. Henderson at the rental facility.
Elizabeth St. Pierre, decedent's mother, sued Yamaha Motor Corporation, Brett Holzle, and the Maingots for damages as a result of St. Pierre's death. Holzle and the Maingots were dismissed, following settlements.
II. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
A. ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT IN FAVOR OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. No evidence supports any products liability claim against Yamaha.
2. Louisiana Products Liability Act requires proof of an actual defect.
Louisiana Products Liability Act, LA-R.S. 9:2800.51, et. seq.
3. A manufacturer is liable for damages caused by its product when some characteristic of the product renders it unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use. LA-R.S. 9:2800:54.
4. An alleged defect cannot be presumed, it must be proved by the plaintiff that the product is unreasonably dangerous in reasonably anticipated use because of an inadequate warning or because of a specific product design defect. L.P.L.A., LA-R.S. 9:2800.51, et seq.
5. L.P.L.A. provides defenses to a manufacturer where the plaintiff alleges damages thru inadequate design: a manufacturer is not required to provide an adequate warning about the product it manufactures when the product's user already knows or reasonably should be expected to know of a characteristic of the product that may be dangerous.
6. A product's design is not unreasonably dangerous if the burden on the manufacturer to adopt an alternative design outweighs the risk and gravity of harm from the product. Defendants assert that Alex knew the harms of the apparatus that she was driving.
7. A defect cannot be presumed just because an accident occurs. Scott v. American Olean Tile Company, Inc., 97-1080 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 2/4/98), 706 So.2d 1091.
8. The accident occurred b/c Alex slammed the wave runner in to the dinghy. She knew how to operate it, including how to start and stop it due to the instruction that she received at the rental facility.
9. It is common knowledge that driving a wave runner into a dinghy full of people will create injuries and is dangerous.
10. No characteristic of the wave runner made it dangerous, Alex simply did not operate it correctly.
11. The facts of this case fail to establish any unreasonable dangerous characteristic of the wave runner. See factual similarities of Breeden v. Valencia, Inc., 557 So.2d 302 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1990)
12. The deceased's death resulted not from the possibility that the wave runner could be operated in a dangerous manner, but instead from the actual reckless and dangerous operation of the product by Alex Maingot.
13. The wave runner's design allowed for safe operation that would not result in injury.
14. Alex's negligent conduct broke not only the sequence of events allowing the unit to be operated dangerously, but also the natural sequence of events that allowed the watercraft to be operated safely.
15. Henderson's minimum rental age was 17. This exceeds Yamaha's recommendation of 16. Both Yamaha and Henderson require a drivers license. He refused to let the other minor, Max, operate the vehicle. He gave a very long instruction to the group including how far to stay away from the other watercraft.
16. Brett operated the watercraft for 10 minutes, Alex collided 10 seconds after she took the controls.
17. The Federal Boat Safety Act "FBSA" preempts the plaintiffs claims. The FBSA has exclusive regulatory authority over regulating boat design. The FBSA has reviewed the design, safety and etc. of all Yamaha watercraft and gave them permission to manufacture and sell the products in the united states. The Coast Guard has never required Yamaha to equip the wave runners with rudders.
18. The Coast Guard has reviewed the designs of personal watercraft since 1976.
19. Coast Guard has stated, that it "has consistently held that the steering designs of the existing personal watercraft are not defective and has also determined that it would not be appropriate at this time to impose any requirement that existing personal watercraft be modified to provide additional steering capability.' August 2002.
20. At the time of the accident, the water was calm.
21. The Royal Cayman police employed an investigator who ruled out that any mechanical defect was present to limit the operation of the vehicle.
22. In addition Royal Cayman Islands Police recommended that Alex be charged with `navigating a vessel in such a rash and negligent way as to endanger human life.'
23. There is no failure to warn claim that is applicable to the Plaintiffs.
24. When a plaintiff submits that the lack of warning or instruction rendered a product unreasonably dangerous, a presumption arises that any adequate warning would have been read and heeded. Bloxom v. Bloxom, 512 So.2d 839. That presumption is rebutted however, when the manufacturer produces contrary evidence which persuades the court that an adequate warning or instruction would have been futile under the circumstances. Between the instructions on the vehicle, the instructions of Henderson, etc, she would not have obeyed any additional instructions. Therefore, Yamaha overcomes the Bloxom presumption.
A. ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. Whether or not the warning issued by Yamaha are deficient for filing to warn novice users, such as Alex and Bret, regarding the dangers of unanticipated movements or sudden acceleration of the WaveRunner upon ignition. The WaveRunner had been turned off while the two riders switched positions. The WaveRunner had drifted to within 20-30 feet of the dinghy when they were changing positions. They were pointed directly at the dinghy. The WaveRunner proceeded to "lurch forward' on ignition; thereafter, Alex lost control of the vehicle and squeezed the throttle, causing it to speed toward the dinghy. Louisiana courts have determined that the adequacy of a warning in a products liability action is, itself, a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. See Dunne v. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated, 95-2047 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/12/02) 679 So.2d 1034; Jones v. Crane Co., (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/9/95) 653 So.2d 822.
2. Whether or not the instruction given by Yamaha to start the WaveRunner with the throttle engaged is improper and makes the WaveRunner unreasonably dangerous for novice users. The National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB"), two years prior to the accident warned Yamaha of the dangers associated with its personal watercraft. The NTSB recommended that Yamaha make changes to its watercraft.
3. Whether or not the warnings issued by Yamaha are deficient for failing to warn novice users regarding starting the wave runner with the throttle engaged. Plaintiff's claim contends that the deceased's death resulted from Yamaha's failure to place warnings on the watercraft alerting Alex and Brett of the dangers of sudden acceleration associated with starting the WaveRunner with the throttle engaged, and further failed to take the necessary precautions to ensure that the clearly anticipated novice users were alerted to the dangers and difficulties of operating the watercraft with passengers.
4. Whether or not the warnings issued by Yamaha regarding operation of the wave runner with passengers was sufficient. There was nothing to indicate that the wave runner would handle differently or that it would "sub-plane' more in the water with passengers.
5. Whether or not the warning issued by Yamaha in its written literature regarding the risks posed in riding with passengers until a level of proficiency is obtained should have been located on the wave runner itself where every user would see them. There were no stickers on the wave runner whereby a renter would see the instructions. While the plaintiff acknowledges that there are warnings in the owners manual, they argue that there are none, which appropriately address the concern at matter, on the watercraft itself.
6. Whether the design of the wave runner is defective and unreasonably dangerous given the high acceleration capability of the watercraft in combo with the trigger-type of throttle mechanism that can result in control loss during takeoff especially when the vehicle is used by novice riders.
7. Whether the design of the wave runner is defective and unreasonably dangerous given that the watercraft is designed to start in gear and may be started with the throttle engaged, which can result in the sudden and immediate high speed movement of the watercraft. The wave runner has no neutral position; therefore, it is designed so that it can be started with the throttle engaged. Once water is propelled thru the engine, it begins to move automatically. The owners' manual instructs that the person starting the engine should slightly grasp the throttle when pushing the start button. The more that you depress the throttle, the more increased that the initial `burst' can be. Plaintiffs point to the deposition of Mr. Emroy Watson, an employee of Yamaha, who has the final authority and responsibility for the issuance of proper warnings on Yamaha's personal watercraft. who states that he does not understand why anyone would start the watercraft with the throttle engaged. Watson Depo., p. 374.
8. Whether the design of the Yamaha is defective and unreasonably dangerous given that Yamaha failed to equip the watercraft with speed restriction devices, off-throttle steering, or other devices that would enhance operator control of the wave runner.
9. Whether feasible alternative designs existed that were capable of preventing deceased's death. Bombardier and Kawasaki, competitors in the field of personal watercraft, both made alternate design modifications to limit speed acceleration and top-end speed. Bombardier made the `Learning Key' lanyard which fits just like the lanyard that Yamaha uses to stop the watercraft in case that the driver becomes ejected from the watercraft. If the lanyard is dislodged from its contact, then the engine stops and its becomes unable to steer based on the fact these types of watercraft do not have off-throttle steering. The Bombardier design was on the market approximately ONE (1) year prior to the accident in question involving the St. Pierre's.
10. Louisiana courts have recognized that the adequacy of a warning in a products liability case is a genuine action of material facts precluding summary judgment.
11. "The determination of whether a warning is adequate depends on a balancing of considerations including, among other things, the severity of the danger, the likelihood that the warning will catch the attention of those who will foreseeably use the product and convey the nature of the danger to them, . . . the intensity and the form of the warning . . . and the cost of improving the strength or mode of the warning." Bloxom v. Bloxom, 512 So.2d at 844
12. There are numerous warning all throughout the owners manual and the practice riding tips booklet. These manuals state that the novice rider is not ready for difficult riding. They consistently indicate that there should be extreme caution taken if you are a novice rider. However, Plaintiffs argue that these warning are not available or sufficient in the rental market. Renters are typically not afforded the opportunity to view the rental booklets, and usually are dependent on instruction from the rental operator. According to the Plaintiff expert, Edward Karnes, see Karnes Report p. 7, to be effective in the rental market, the warnings must be placed on the watercraft itself
13. Yamaha developed a `RENTAL KIT' which is designed to provide rental companies with important information to conduct safe operations. There are videos, laminated help cards and materials to assist rental outlets which contain recommendations to assist in the safe and responsible conduct of the rental business which Yamaha distributes because riders might not always be experienced. Yamaha never provided the rental outfit in Grand Cayman with a rental packet. See Watson Depo. P. 176 et. seq.
14. `The issue of whether a warning sticker needs to be placed on or near [the product at issue] is a factual one to be decided by a jury." Ballam v. Seibels Bruce Insurance Company, 97-1444 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/1/98) 712 So.2d 543, 549.
15. The cost of including a warning would be insignificant. Connon v. Cavalier Corp., 572 So.2d 299, 306 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1990)
16. `To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff need only demonstrate that an alternative design might exist that would have prevented plaintiffs damages.' Green v. BDI Pharmaceuticals, 35,291 (La.App. 2 Cir 10/31/01) 803 So.2d 68, 72. The wave runner is inherently dangerous in its design based on its ability to depress the throttle when starting the engine.
17. Despite warnings by the NTSB, Yamaha has failed to equip any of its machines with speed restriction devices. Such a device might have given the parties involved more time to react. At a minimum, a speed restriction device would have prevented the WaveRunner from striking St. Pierre at full speed, and would have severely lessened the amount of force exerted upon St. Pierre in the event of a crash.
18. The shape and location of the throttle present another genuine issue of material fact that should be tried before a trier of fact with regards to the issue of an alternative design.
19. The FBSA does not apply to the action at hand. In Lady v. Neal Glaser Marine, Inc., 228 F.3d 598, 611 (5th Cir. 2000), the Court denied the defendant's assertion that the FBSA pre-empted the plaintiffs state law products liability claim.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
A. Law on Motion for Summary Judgment:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that summary judgment should be granted only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d 651, 655-56 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 912-13 (5th Cir.) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 832 (1992)). When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56©), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. The nonmoving party must come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (emphasis supplied); Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V RISAN, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995).
Thus, where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no "genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 588. Finally, the Court notes that substantive law determines the materiality of facts and only "facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "A dispute about a material fact is `genuine' . . . if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Skotak, 953 F.2d at 913, citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
B. Court's Analysis
The environment surrounding the operation of the Yamaha WaveRunner by Alex Maingot, the measures taken by Yamaha to provide instructions to owners and renters, and the instructions provided by the rental operator in Grand Cayman, are fact intensive issues which have material weight in this case. A Court must be certain that no material fact remains which could prompt a reasonable trier of fact to decide for the opposing party. In the immediate instance, the Court, and subsequently the trier of fact is left to ponder a myriad of issues which remain in question: Were the written warnings in the owners manual adequate'? Were the written warning on the WaveRunner decals adequate? Were the operation warnings provided by Mr. Henderson adequate? Was there a need for additional warnings? Were the warnings appropriate to the situation involving the minor riders? Were the available warnings appropriately placed on the WaveRunner? Does Yamaha lessen the urgency of a safety concern by classifying the statement as a `recommendation' rather than a "warning'? Does Yamaha fail its duty' to its rental customers because it places some warnings with a large "safety alert symbol' while failing to designate other operational hazards in a similar fashion'? Does Yamaha fail to meet its duty to its rental customers be failing to alert them to the operational hazards of the WaveRunner in a manner that is conducive to the rental market?
In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant failed to carry its burden of identifying the possibility of an absence of genuine issue of material fact; nevertheless, under Matsushita, 475 U.S. 574 (1986), and its progeny, the non-movant Plaintiff has met its burden of demonstrating that the disputed actions of the events leading to the accident as well as the actions by Yamaha present genuine issue for trial. As such, this Court is unable, with the material presented before it, to grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the defendant, Yamaha Motor Corporation, be and the same is hereby DENIED.