Rhino ATV -- Simply a Dangerous Product
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 704
A few weeks ago, people were talking about the defense verdict in the first trial involving a Rhino ATV. A Texas jury concluded last month that Yamaha was not responsible for the death of a thirteen year old Rhino operator. Everyone interested in product safety and product liability litigation follows the verdicts. It is a subject of tremendous interest. In this instance, however, we don’t think that this verdict means very much.
The fact remains that the Rhino is associated with nearly sixty deaths in this country, an imposing number giving the relative size of the affected number of vehicles (about 145,000). The problem: this is a very stiff vehicle which, because of its width and high center of gravity, is prone to roll over, at speeds as low as 11 miles per hour.
It was not lost on many of us that Yamaha’s victory in the first trial came just three weeks after a news release from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “CPSC”), reminding Rhino operators to “Stay Safe this Summer” by observing basic operating tips (e.g., using seatbelts and helmets) and critically, taking Yamaha up on its offer to provide free repairs for the affected Rhino models (450, 660 and 700). Back in March, the CPSC, “in cooperation” with Yamaha, announced this free program to address the very safety issues that make the Rhino unsafe.
The repair includes the installation of rear-wheel spacers and an anti-sway bar. These ‘fixes’ are supposed to add vehicle stability and improve handling, both of which should reduce rollover accidents. Yamaha is also installing half-doors and additional passenger hand grips to help keep occupants’ arms and legs inside the vehicle.
Experience teaches that the success rate of campaigns such as these is directly related to the amount of energy (and money) a manufacturer applies to getting the word out. The jury is still out on this question, certainly. It is likely that many thousands of owners and operators remain uninformed and misinformed about the hazards of the Rhino. And, of course, these belated repairs can’t help the families of those who were already injured or killed.
The Texas jury may well have been influenced by the fact that the operator was only thirteen (according to Yamaha, the Rhino’s warnings are clear that operators should be at least sixteen) and lacked protective gear. Yamaha blamed the accident on operator error and a spokesman said, after the verdict, that the accident, though “tragic,” was not the result of a defective design.
Well, maybe. The point is that the design of the Rhino is defective. What are the odds that Yamaha would have ‘cooperated’ with the CPSC to repair vehicles that were free of defects? In fact, Yamaha’s own website says, “You should not operate your Rhino until it is modified with these repair parts.”
A better understanding of the recent Texas verdict would probably require more information than we have seen in the press. As for us, we remain confident that the Rhino is a defective product and expect to see substantially different results in the cases that remain to be tried.