Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/575161
16 • October 5, 2015 • Powersports Business FINANCIAL www.PowersportsBusiness.com Sea-Doo jet boat suit finds no negligence by OEM A Duval County, Florida jury returned a defense verdict in favor of BRP U.S., Inc. in a product liability suit involving allegations of negligence, strict liability and failure to warn. The accident arose from use of an engine hatch cover on a jet boat, which resulted in partial amputation of a foot, reflex sympathetic dystro- phy and other personal injuries. Scott M. Sarason and Armando G. Hernan- dez of the Miami office of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., along with Yves St. Arnaud and Charles-Andre Girard of Bombardier Recre- ational Products, recently obtained a defense verdict in favor of their client BRP U.S., Inc. in a product liability lawsuit in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, after a week long jury trial. The lawsuit, styled Carmon Sullivan v. BRP U.S., Inc., Case No. 2013-CA-000569, involved the plaintiff's allegations of strict liability design defect, negligent design and failure to warn. BRP's counsel successfully had the plaintiff's consortium claim dismissed, pursuant to maritime law's prohibition, and the plaintiff's warranty claims dismissed pur- suant to Florida's privity requirements. This effectively streamlined the litigation from the outset. Prior to trial, the plaintiff moved for leave to plead punitive damages, which BRP's counsel opposed at an evidentiary hearing and the trial court denied. On the date of the accident, Jan. 26, 2012, the plaintiff (a 37-year-old female) was per- forming maintenance in the engine compart- ment of a 2011 Sea-Doo jet boat while it was suspended on a lift in the plaintiff's backyard. Instead of closing the engine hatch from the cockpit area, which is the only place a user can open the hatch, the plaintiff climbed onto the gunnel of the jet boat, jumped onto the dock, and then re-boarded the jet boat from the rear swim platform. Once on the rear platform, the plaintiff positioned her foot in an open, obvious and clearly observable semicircular opening underneath the open engine hatch. Without looking down first to see where her foot was, the plaintiff pushed the engine hatch closed on her own foot. The plaintiff's foot was stuck for approximately 30 minutes before someone finally came to her assistance and opened the engine hatch to release her foot. Three of the plaintiff's toes were amputated. The plaintiff was diagnosed with neuropathic pain, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, chronic pain syndrome and an altered gait as well as constant back, hip, knee, leg and foot pain. The plaintiff underwent two surgeries for implanta- tion of a spinal cord stimulator to address her pain symptoms. The plaintiff's life care plan costs were in excess of $1 million dollars. At trial, the plaintiff contended that BRP knew of the foreseeable risk of severe injury with the unreasonably dangerous and defec- tive design of the engine hatch cover and semicircular opening but did nothing. The plaintiff argued that BRP failed to warn of the foreseeable risk of injury and did not include any information, warnings, or instructions on the jet boat itself, the owner's manual, or the safety video. The plaintiff maintained that BRP's negligence and/or the defect with regard to the jet boat were the cause of the plaintiff's injuries and sought millions of dollars for dis- figurement, mental anguish, pain and suffering, past medical expenses and noteworthy future medical care needs. BRP contended that the 2011 Sea-Doo jet boat was not defective, unreasonably danger- ous, or responsible for this entirely avoidable accident. BRP explained the evaluation, devel- opment and hundreds of hours of testing that went into designing the jet boat and all its parts. BRP also emphasized that not a single other person had ever been injured while using the identical engine hatch design on other Sea-Doo jet boat models. BRP maintained that because the semicir- cular opening underneath the engine hatch was so open, obvious and clearly observable, there was no duty to warn. BRP informed the jury that the plaintiff had opened and closed the same engine hatch on the jet boat at least 50 times in the 10-month period prior to the date of the accident without any injury. BRP had the plaintiff concede that she had seen the open and obvious semicircular open- ing prior to the DOA. As such, BRP argued that Plaintiff was solely responsible for her own injuries. BRP further argued that in the 3 1/2 years since the date of the accident, the plaintiff continued to regularly use the jet boat (includ- ing opening and closing the very same engine hatch cover without any changes or modifica- tions) without any accident or injury. The jury returned a verdict finding no neg- ligence on the part of BRP and no defect with the 2011 Sea-Doo jet boat. The plaintiff will not appeal the jury verdict. PSB Jury returns defense verdict in favor of BRP BRP REVENUES, GROSS PROFIT RISE IN 2016 FISCAL Q2 BRP Inc. in September reported its financial results for the three- and six-month periods ended July 31, 2015. "Two years after the introduction of the Sea-Doo Spark, we can now affirm that we have achieved our goal of rejuvenating the personal watercraft industry, knowing that it has grown globally by more than 25 percent, having a positive impact on sales of traditional personal watercraft. We also had an excellent first season with our Can-Am Outlander L ATV family, which contributed to good market share gains in the mid-cc ATV segment," said José Boisjoli, president and CEO. "These successes are the results of the teams' excellent execution and hitting the market on time." Revenues increased by $32.1 million, or 4.1 percent, to $812.1 million for the three- month period ended July 31, compared to the corresponding period ended July 31, 2014. JOSÉ BOISJOLI