Carmen Pineda et al v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. et al

Case Background

On February 08, 2022, decedent Juan Antonio Pineda Flores’ family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Yamaha Motor Corporation. The allegations levied included that of strict product liability for a defective Yamaha WaveRunner which exploded while Juan attempted to start it.

The case was filed in the San Bernardino Superior Court, California. Judge David E Driscoll presided over the trial. [Case number: CIVSB2203387]

Cause

Plaintiff Rosario Del Carmen Pineda, Juan’s wife, resided in San Bernardino, California. Mitzy Azucena Pineda Sanchez and Kathleen Fleurette Pineda Sanchez, both Juan’s daughters, also lived in San Bernardino. Elenna Elizabeth Pineda Sanchez, Juan’s minor daughter, was represented in this action by her mother, Rosario, as her guardian ad litem.

Defendant Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., (“Yamaha USA”) operated a business in California. Additionally, Defendant Yamaha Motor Company, Ltd. (“Yamaha Ltd”) was a foreign corporation based in Japan. Yamaha Ltd was authorized to do business in California, with its principal office in Shingai Iwata, Shizuoka, Japan. On or about April 5, 2020, Juan purchased two Yamaha WaveRunners, Model No. FAl 800N, from Bert’s. One was new, named “Kathleen,” while the other was used, named “Elenna.”

On June 11, 2021, Juan, Rosario, Kathleen, and Elenna traveled to Earp with the WaveRunners to enjoy the Colorado River. They transported the WaveRunners on a trailer designed for both.

Upon reaching the boat launch ramp, Kathleen and Elenna prepared to ride. Juan approached the WaveRunners, first attempting to start the Elenna WR but failed. He then climbed onto the Kathleen WR and pressed the ignition. Suddenly, it exploded, throwing Juan and causing his wrongful death. Rosario, Kathleen, and Elenna witnessed the horrific incident, unable to avert their eyes from Juan’s tragic fate.

Damages

The Plaintiffs suffered significant harm due to the negligence of the Defendants. They experienced emotional distress after witnessing the explosion and the wrongful death of Juan. The Defendants’ failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions rendered WaveRunner defective, making them strictly liable for the resulting damages.

On June 11, 2021, Juan suffered damages before his death due to the Defendants’ actions. The Plaintiffs faced various financial losses, including healthcare expenses and loss of earnings. Additionally, they incurred other economic losses directly linked to the Defendants’ negligence, further compounding their hardship.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Claims

First Cause of Action: Negligence

Plaintiffs claimed harm due to the Defendants’ negligence. The Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in all aspects of the WaveRunner’s lifecycle. This included manufacturing, designing, labeling, and selling the product. However, they failed to meet these obligations.

The Defendants should have known that the WaveRunner posed risks of injury if not designed and manufactured properly. Their negligence, including poor design and testing, directly led to Juan’s wrongful death.

Second Cause of Action: Strict Products Liability—Manufacturing Defect

Plaintiffs asserted harm caused by products manufactured and sold by the defendants. The WaveRunner that Juan operated contained a manufacturing defect related to the ignition or fuel intake system. This defect caused harm to the Plaintiffs.

Third Cause of Action: Strict Products Liability—Design Defect

Prior to June 11, 2021, the WaveRunner had a design defect. The ignition and fuel intake systems did not perform safely, failing to meet consumer expectations. The risks outweighed the benefits, leading to foreseeable injuries from its normal use.

Fourth Cause of Action: Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn

The Defendants had a duty to warn users about known defects and dangers associated with the WaveRunner. The product lacked adequate instructions and warnings, presenting substantial risks of serious injury. The defendants knew the WaveRunner could explode and failed to inform users.

Fifth Cause of Action: Breach of Warranty

Defendants impliedly warranted that the WaveRunner was safe and suitable for use. However, the product contained defects leading to the explosion. Plaintiffs relied on these false representations, resulting in physical and emotional harm.

Sixth Cause of Action: Survival Action (CCP 377.10 et seq.)

Plaintiffs, as successors in interest, filed this action under California law, asserting their right to seek damages related to Juan’s wrongful death. They executed a declaration in compliance with legal requirements.

Defense

Yamaha argued that the explosion in 2021 resulted from the decedent’s failure to maintain and service the WaveRunner properly. They claimed he did not ventilate the engine compartment before starting the engine. There was no evidence that he performed any maintenance on the WaveRunner during the five years leading up to the explosion. This included missing required annual inspections of the WaveRunner and its fuel system. Consequently, he did not discover a gas tank leak caused by the removal of a fuel tank vent hose, which might have been done by him or an unknown third party.

Additionally, the decedent was under the influence of alcohol and neglected Yamaha’s repeated instructions. He failed to remove the seat on the WaveRunner to ventilate the engine compartment of gasoline vapors before starting the engine. As with all personal watercraft, removing the seat was necessary for proper ventilation. Yamaha also provided unchallenged testing results. These results indicated that gasoline vapors could not have accumulated to a flammable level during the 15 minutes between when the decedent allegedly replaced the seat and when he started the engine.

The WaveRunner’s fuel filler neck did not fracture during assembly in 2013. Instead, it fractured due to the explosion in 2021 when the deck separated from the hull. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not provide any testing to support their theory about the fracture’s cause.

Expert Testimony

The Plaintiffs enlisted a team of experts with diverse qualifications to support their wrongful death case. Kenneth A. Solomon, Ph.D., P.E., and Weikuang Chao, B.S., M.S., both specialized in accident reconstruction from Woodland Hills, aimed to analyze the dynamics of the incident.

The WaveRunner had a fracture in the fuel filler neck located just below the vessel’s deck. This defect resulted from faulty manufacturing. Specifically, during the installation of the fuel filler neck, YMMC over-tightened the bolt that secured it to the vessel’s deck. This over-tightening created excessive pressure on the fuel filler neck, ultimately causing it to fracture.

Plaintiffs’ expert Weikuang Chao testified that the fractured surface displayed “beach wave” and “striation” marks. He attributed these marks to the “over-torquing” that occurred during the installation. The fracture allowed gasoline vapors to leak from the fuel line into the vessel’s hull, posing a significant safety hazard.

Charles Reinga, an expert in marine safety, inspection, repair, and maintenance from Sun Lakes, AZ, contributed insights on industry standards and practices. Forensic toxicologist Okorie Okorocha, M.S., M.S., J.D., from Pasadena, provided crucial information regarding the decedent’s condition at the time of the accident. Additionally, Paul Thomas, Ph.D., MRC, CRC, from Agoura Hills, offered economic analysis related to the Plaintiffs’ claims.

On the defense side, Kevin Breen, and Robert K. Taylor both focused on accident reconstruction. Nathan T. Dorris examined human factors and warnings, while Jeff Colwell investigated the cause and origin of the fire. David J. Eby specialized in plastics and polymer failure. Finally, forensic toxicologist Bruce A. Goldberger, Ph.D., F-ABFT, contributed insights, and David J. Weiner provided economic perspectives. Together, these experts aimed to present comprehensive analyses to support their respective positions in the case.

Jury Verdict

On July 18, 2024, the jury found in favor of the Plaintiff on the counts of manufacturing defect, negligence, and breach of express warranty. No comparative negligence was found. The jury assigned 75% of the responsibility for the Plaintiffs’ harm to Yamaha Motor Corp. USA and 25% to Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America. The jury awarded the Plaintiffs the following in damages:

Rosario Del Carmen Pineda – $9,423,373

  • Past economic loss: $17,034
  • Future economic loss: $1,606,339
  • Past non-economic loss: $600,000
  • Future non-economic loss: $7,200,000

Mitzy Azucena Pineda Sanchez – $3,900,000

  • Past non-economic loss: $300,000
  • Future non-economic loss: $3,600,000

Kathleen Fleurette Pineda Sanchez – $3,900,000

  • Past non-economic loss: $300,000
  • Future non-economic loss: $3,600,000

Elenna Elizabeth Pineda Sanchez – $3,900,000

  • Past non-economic loss: $300,000
  • Future non-economic loss: $3,600,000

The total damages awarded for Juan’s wrongful death came up to $22,123,373.

Court Documents:

Available upon request