Case details

Nets should have been installed on ATV, plaintiff contended

SUMMARY

$3675000

Amount

Settlement

Result type

Not present

Ruling
KEYWORDS
arm, arterial, artery, decreased range of motion, elbow, epidermis, foot, heel, leg, numbness, vascular
FACTS
On Feb. 28, 2010, the plaintiff, 18, a student, was operating an all-terrain vehicle on his friend’s property in Santa Rosa. The owners of the ATV had the vehicle modified with a lift kit, larger tires and a more powerful engine. The plaintiff was initiating a turn when the ATV tipped over onto the driver’s side, pinning the plaintiff’s arm underneath the vehicle. He sustained to his left, non-dominant arm. The plaintiff brought suit against the manufacturer, the retailer and the assembler of the ATV for products liability, alleging a manufacturing and design defect. He also sued the owners of the ATV for negligence. The plaintiff contended that in the place of doors, the manufacturer designed the ATV to have safety nets installed on both the passenger’s and the driver’s sides of the vehicle to keep the occupant’s limbs inside the vehicle. The plaintiff contended that the nets had not been installed on the ATV prior to his injury. The manufacturer delegated the installation of the safety nets and part of the assembly of the ATV to its authorized dealers. The retailer that sold the ATV hired the subject assembler to assemble the vehicle and install the safety nets. The nets were not installed when the owners purchased the ATV. The plaintiff contended that had the nets been installed, they would have contained his arm in the vehicle and he would not have been seriously injured. The plaintiff’s position was that the ATV contained a manufacturing defect because the nets were never installed. Additionally, he contended that the ATV was defectively designed because the nets were a safety feature that the manufacturer made optional for use. The plaintiff noted that the hang tag, a tag that a manufacturer hangs on the ATV to provide information to the purchaser that is supposed to be removed before operation, stated that the nets should be secured, if applicable. The owner’s manual contained instructions for removing the nets if they interfered with the operator’s driving. The plaintiff suggested that actual doors be used instead of nets as a safer alternative design. The defense claimed that the plaintiff was responsible for his by driving too fast, steering too hard during the turn, and by failing to follow the manufacturer’s warnings to operate the ATV with the safety nets and to not operate the ATV with non-approved accessories, which may seriously affect the stability of the vehicle., The plaintiff’s left arm was partially severed and detached at the elbow after being pinned underneath the ATV. He was initially treated at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, where he underwent surgeries to repair ligaments and arteries in his arm. During the next three years, the plaintiff underwent more than 20 surgeries involving skin grafts and repairs to his ligaments and tendons and revascularization of his arteries. The resulted in the plaintiff having very limited use of his left arm and hand. He claimed that he is unable to tie his shoes and put on his socks, and has difficulty bathing and buttoning clothes, among other activities of daily living. He also claimed that he has decreased mobility due to the pain and numbness he experiences in his right leg and foot where doctors had harvested a vein and implanted it in his left forearm for vascularization. The plaintiff attempted to return to school, but it was difficult because he had several major surgeries scheduled during the school year. The surgeries along with the recovery periods and effects from the medications he has been taking made it difficult to attend school. He hopes to return to school when his are more stable. The plaintiff’s doctors opined that he would continue to need additional surgeries in the future, including a total elbow replacement; physical therapy; medication; and other treatment. The damages sought by the plaintiff included past medical expenses of $677,212, future medical expenses of $314,928, and future loss of household services of $217,316. Past lost earnings of $44,075 and future lost earnings up to $984,087 were also demanded. The plaintiff also sought damages for pain and suffering.
COURT
Superior Court of Sonoma County, Sonoma, CA

Recommended Experts

NEED HELP? TALK WITH AN EXPERT

Get a FREE consultation for your case