Manufacturer Sued After Teen Loses Arm In ATV Wreck

The manufacturer of a popular ATV is being sued after a teen had to have his arm amputated after a terrible crash. According to the complaint, the teen was using the ATV when it flipped over. His arm did not stay in the cabin of the ATV and instead was crushed when the vehicle flipped over. The teen’s arm had to be amputated above the elbow to avoid further injury. The plaintiffs allege that the cabin had a design flaw that rendered it unnecessarily dangerous to its drivers. In this article, we’ll take a look at the complaint.

The plaintiffs allege that the placement of a safety net around the cabin would have prevented the plaintiff’s extremities from being exposed to danger. The plaintiffs have alleged strict liability, negligence, and gross negligence. Below, we’ll take a look at the allegations.

Strict liability 

Product liability lawsuits include a presumption of liability when a product is manufactured to the general public and does not behave the way it’s supposed to, causing injury. The plaintiff does not need to prove negligence because the presumption of negligence is already apparent. The plaintiffs placed a dangerous product into the stream of commerce and this inevitably led to an injury. So long as the device wasn’t modified or used in a manner that could not be anticipated by the manufacturer, the manufacturer is generally liable.

General negligence 

The second allegation involves the failure to warn or to apply safety technology that could have prevented this plaintiff from losing his arm. In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the company failed to warn buyers about the dangers of placing their arms outside of the cabin space or employed netting that could have prevented the arm from being crushed under the vehicle.

Gross negligence 

Gross negligence verdicts in product liability cases are rare unless the plaintiff can prove willful misconduct. On the other hand, allegations of gross negligence are not very rare. To prove gross negligence, the plaintiff can provide evidence that the company knew that their product was unreasonably dangerous and failed to remedy the issue before additional plaintiffs were injured. In gross negligence verdicts, it is often shown that the defendant knew about a danger but failed to correct the danger because the costs incurred by a lawsuit would be less than the costs incurred by a recall. However, the costs incurred by a gross negligence lawsuit are far in excess of the cost of a recall. Companies are driven into bankruptcy by these verdicts and often, rightfully so. Nonetheless, it is very difficult to prove gross negligence in these cases.

Talk to a Florida Products Liability Attorney Today 

Have you been injured by a defective product? If so, the Florida personal injury attorneys at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert can litigate the claim on your behalf and help you recover damages related to your medical expenses, lost wages, and reduced quality of life.

Source:

law.com/dailyreportonline/2022/05/20/parents-of-teen-who-lost-an-arm-in-atv-wreck-sue-polaris-for-product-liability-claims/