Snell & Wilmer Secures Trial Victory for Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.

ORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer secured a defense verdict in a product liability suit filed against Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. The product involved was a Yamaha 23-foot jet boat and the trial took place in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in San Jose, California. 

During a waterskiing trip on Lake Nacimiento in San Luis Obispo County, the plaintiff, Katrina Kidd, was a passenger on the boat, while her fiancé was knee boarding behind it. After a run, the boat’s captain temporarily stopped the vessel. When the captain restarted the engines, a portion of the ski rope—which the boat had drifted over—was drawn into the intake grate of one of the boat’s twin jet engines. The intake grate was located beneath the hull, below the waterline. The rope passed through the grate and became wrapped around the engine’s driveshaft and impeller, causing the rope to tighten rapidly as it wound around the shaft.

At the time, the plaintiff was standing on the boat attempting to coil the loose ski rope, part of which was wrapped around her hand. As the rope tightened around the driveshaft, it also tightened around the plaintiff’s right hand, nearly pulling her overboard and almost amputating her hand. The plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries and permanently lost much of the use of her hand.

The plaintiff sued the owner and captain of the boat for negligence and also asserted claims against Yamaha for alleged design defects and failure to warn. The plaintiff settled with the boat’s captain immediately before jury selection. 

As to Yamaha, the plaintiff alleged that the boat was defectively designed because openings in the engine intake grates were too large, allowing the ski rope to pass through the intake and become entangled on the boat’s spinning driveshaft. The plaintiff contended that the intake grates should have been designed with smaller or more narrowly spaced openings.

In support of these claims, the plaintiff’s experts fabricated alternative intake grates with smaller openings, which they asserted would have prevented the incident without adversely affecting the boat’s performance. The plaintiff further alleged that Yamaha failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the risk that the engine could ingest a rope and cause serious injury. The plaintiff’s warnings expert proposed alternative warnings that, according to the plaintiff, would have adequately alerted both the plaintiff and the boat’s captain to the alleged danger.

Yamaha defended the case by demonstrating that the boat was not defectively designed. Specifically, Yamaha showed that the intake grate necessarily is designed with openings to allow water to flow into the jet pump, which is how the water-jet engine generates propulsion for the boat. Yamaha further demonstrated that the alternative intake grate proposed by the plaintiff’s experts was not functional and would not have prevented an object with the diameter of a ski rope from being ingested through the intake grate.

Yamaha also established that an intake grate with openings small enough to prevent a ski rope from entering the jet pump would have significantly restricted water flow, causing the jet pump to malfunction and the engines to overheat and shut down. In addition, Yamaha presented evidence that the boat contained multiple warnings—both on labels affixed to the boat and in the owner’s manual—regarding the risks associated with objects becoming entangled in the intake and jet pump system, and that both the plaintiff and the boat’s captain were aware of this risk.

Finally, Yamaha presented evidence that the incident and the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the negligence of the boat’s captain, who restarted the boat’s engines without confirming the location of the ski rope and without warning the plaintiff that the engines were being restarted, as well as by the plaintiff’s own negligence in continuing to hold the ski rope after the engines were started.

The plaintiff’s lawyer did not ask for a specific dollar amount in closing argument but suggested that the jury should award damages in excess of $30 million. After a three-week trial and 3.5 hours of deliberations, the 12-person jury returned a verdict for Yamaha on both claims.

Daniel S. Rodman and Katharine H. Adams led the Snell & Wilmer team representing Yamaha.

Snell & Wilmer’s Product Liability Litigation team is one of the largest and most experienced product liability defense practices in the country, representing manufacturers, distributors, and insurers in complex litigation involving a wide range of products, including consumer goods, automotive products, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, industrial equipment, food products, and emerging technologies. The team regularly serves as national trial and coordinating counsel in state and federal courts nationwide, handling matters ranging from catastrophic injury claims to class actions and mass torts. In addition to defending litigation, the group works proactively with clients to identify and mitigate potential risks before disputes arise, advising on product design, manufacturing processes, regulatory compliance, document retention, and litigation preparedness. By combining extensive trial experience, strategic litigation management, and a nationwide network of trusted local counsel and technical experts, Snell & Wilmer delivers cost-effective, business-focused solutions designed to minimize liability exposure and protect clients’ interests.

**The result portrayed was dependent on the facts of that case, and the results will differ if based on different facts.