Anoriginal, your thoughts required.
1. Why would they go after one manufacturer?
2. Why is this the responsibility of Yamaha?
3. Is this a money venture for the lawfirm?
I knowyou don't personally work for them,but I thought you may have some insights to why this occurs.
Thanks
Good questions for sure. I'll do my best to answer them from an attorney's perspective. However, I despise these types of law firms.
1. Why just one manufacturer? I'd say because Yamaha is the best selling most visible target. More Rhinos are sold than all of the other UTV's combined. So, I think it's just sheer numbers. You have to figure that more accidents happend with the Rhino than any other just because of the numbers out there.
2. Yamaha's responsibility. This is a tricky one. It's only their responsibility to the extent they can prove the vehicle is inherently dangerous regardless of operator error. That's the same approach that was taken relative to 3 wheelers back in the late 1980's. In countless suits, the plaintiffs were able to convince a jury that the ATC's were inherently dangerous and prone to accidents regardless of operator error. Thus, liability was pinned on the manufacturer for damages. Doesn't make it right. But, it's just a matter of establishing that the vehicle can be unsafe in any circumstance.
3. Money Venture? Definitely. You have to figure that the firm is getting a % of any recovery. Moreover, the firm advertising isn't the firm that actually does the work. Rather, they refer out the cases to local attorneys and take a cut off of the case. Therefore, if they win, they get a cut. If they lose, their out nothing.
Personally, I think most pI guys are dirt bags. I have never and will never practice this type of law. They are the reason so many people hate attorneys these days.
Hope that helps. Just my .02 but it's the way I see it from a legal approach.
