The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Yamaha Hit with $3.3 Million Verdict for Wanton Conduct

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Andrew Findley

Jury: Yamaha Must Pay Plaintiff $3.3 Million for Injuries Resulting from Flawed Rhino 660 UTV Vehicle

Montgomery, AL – After five hours of deliberation, a jury in Montgomery, Alabama returned a $3.3 million verdict against Yamaha for its wanton conduct in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of the Yamaha Rhino Model 660 UTV vehicle. A finding of wantonness means that Yamaha acted or failed to act with a conscious and reckless disregard for the safety of its consumers, knowing that grievous injury was likely to result.

The plaintiff in the case, represented by Levin Papantonio attorneys Fred Levin, Cameron Stephenson, and Aaron Watson, alleged that she sustained grievous injury when her Yamaha Rhino Model 660 overturned on top of her, crushing her when she tried to make a right turn on flat terrain at a slow speed.

The overwhelming evidence against Yamaha proved that shortly after the Rhino Model 660 UTV vehicle went onto the market, consumers and even dealers began receiving reports that users were experiencing overturns while traveling at slow speeds on flat terrain. Rather than recall the vehicle, Yamaha continued to sell the vehicle putting profits over safety as the number of reported injuries continued to increase. Moreover, despite the fact that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) threatened to make a preliminary determination that the vehicle should be classified as a Hazard A, Yamaha continued to sell, denying any wrongdoing. A Hazard A classification is assigned where it is determined that a defect is substantially likely to cause injury or death.

“In talking to the jury after the trial, the amazing thing was that as a 12-person jury that requires a unanimous verdict, they found liability against the company almost immediately, and the reason for the five hours of deliberation was over the damages,” said plaintiff’s attorney Fred Levin of Levin Papantonio.

“The jury’s verdict confirmed what we knew all along. Once Yamaha knew that there was a problem with this machine, they should have immediately stopped selling and corrected the problem. They did nothing. That is what this case was all about,” said plaintiff’s Attorney Aaron Watson of Levin Papantonio.

In finding for the plaintiff, the jury sent a clear message to Yamaha that the public will not tolerate their blatant disregard for safety. The $3.3 million dollar verdict is the largest to date in the Yamaha Rhino national litigation.

If you would like more information on this case or if you would like to speak with one of the attorneys, please contact Karl Frisch at 202-681-2855 x102 or email [email protected].

Posted in Blog, Newsletter

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

January 15th, 2021

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

January 13th, 2021

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

January 11th, 2021

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

January 8th, 2021

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

January 6th, 2021

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.