ATV Florida Forum

To all ATV enthusiast,
    Please do not patronize this type of law firm.            http://www.yamaharhinorolloverandrecall.com
    These lawfirms are detrimental to the ATV community. Firms like this are the ones that bring bad light to our sport and then the public gets a bad view of the ATV community. Trail closures and product discontinuation are the results of this type of greed.
    We as a ATV community know that we are involved in a dangerous sport but we choose to participate in them. Please encourage webmasters to discontinue receiving payment from these companys. SUPPORT THE SPORT!
                          Thanks,   Banger

 :Clap.gif

now we all know that most ATV accidents are due to someone's negligence... but to seriously get a lawyer involved is overkill .... people in this country need to stop being so damn sue happy....

we were involved in a headon collision at RR on the main grade and we handled the situation with the help of RR Staff and amongst our selves.... the only reason the cops were called was because there was minor injuries....

Anoriginal, your thoughts required.

1. Why would they go after one manufacturer?
2. Why is this the responsiblity 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 insightas 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.  ;D