Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Steve and Laura Nakamura (Ds) bought two 2-seater Polaris SLH-700 personal watercraft. The Fords (Ps) and Ds and various family members went to Lake Berryessa for a picnic. Laura (D) took Susan (P) for a ride on the watercraft. P was wearing a one-piece swimsuit and a life jacket. This was her first time riding a personal watercraft. P held on to D's waist. D stopped to tell P she was holding on too tight and to hold on to the grips behind her instead. All she saw were the grab handles. She had to lean back and could only hook a couple fingers into each handle. They started again in a straight line. The jet ski was “bumping up and down.” P lost her grip, was lifted off the seat and fell backward off the rear of the watercraft. Paramedics rushed P by helicopter to the University of California Davis Medical Center. P sustained a severe hernial and rectal injury. Her internal bleeding required multiple transfusions. Two surgeries were required to prepare and establish a colostomy. Medical records indicate she also required “massive resuscitation … from her initial operation.” P has no control over her bowels. P was not eligible for rectal-colon reconstructive surgery. P also had urological complications where she must self-catheterize in order to urinate. She is numb from her right kneecap to her waist; her buttocks and pelvic area are also numb. Ps sued Polaris (D) for strict products liability and sued D for negligence. D moved for summary judgment in that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred Ps’ action against her. P assumed the risk of falling out of the watercraft. Polaris (D) argued that D failed to communicate to P the instructions and warnings provided by the company and wrongfully instructed her to ride the watercraft in an unsafe manner. The court ruled that although D did not communicate to P the Polaris (D) warning to wear protective clothing, and told her to hang on to the handles, contrary to Polaris instructions and warnings, these lapses at most amounted to mere negligence. Therefore under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk P owed D no duty of care. The motion was granted. Polaris (D) moved for summary judgment. in that primary assumption of risk barred the claim. Polaris (D) argued that under principles of collateral estoppel, the court must apply primary assumption of the risk to Ps' claims. The court explained that Ps' allegations against Polaris (D) concerned its duty to provide products free of design defects, a duty that did not attach to P. The court denied the motion. The jury returned a special verdict on the design defect claim, awarded P $382,024 in economic losses and $3,262,500 in noneconomic losses, and awarded Anthony (P) $115,000 for loss of consortium. The jury found that P was not comparatively negligent. Polaris (D) appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co