 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co.6/8/2000
Amended by Order
filed 6-13-00
Desert Golf Cars ("Desert Golf") appeals the trial court's grant of a directed verdict to Yamaha Motor Company ("Yamaha"). Yamaha cross-appeals the trial court's award of costs. For the following reasons, we reverse both the directed verdict and the award of costs.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1988, the Scottsdale Princess Resort ordered a room services cart from Desert Golf. To fill the resort's order, Desert Golf purchased a golf cart from Yamaha and modified it to better serve its intended function. The original Yamaha golf cart was changed by adding thirty-two inches of length and installing a food-service body. Although the seat was altered slightly, the occupants' compartment was largely unchanged.
On September 22, 1994, the plaintiff below, a bartender at the resort, was injured when she was riding in the cart with two other resort employees. The driver made a sharp left turn, and plaintiff fell out of the cart.
Plaintiff filed her complaint against both Desert Golf and Yamaha, seeking damages for her injuries. In her complaint, plaintiff claimed that the two defendants manufactured and sold the defective cart to her employer. Essentially, plaintiff claimed that the cart had been designed and manufactured without an adequate passenger restraint system.
Desert Golf tendered its defense to Yamaha, which refused to defend because of Desert Golf's modifications. Desert Golf then filed a cross-claim against Yamaha, seeking indemnity and reimbursement of attorneys' fees pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated ("A.R.S.") section 12-684 ("section 684"). Yamaha answered, maintaining that it did not design, manufacture, distribute or sell the cart.
Three days prior to trial, and over three years after filing suit, plaintiff, pursuant to a stipulation with Yamaha, announced that she intended to voluntarily dismiss her claims against it. In her motion to dismiss, plaintiff stated that Yamaha did not design or manufacture the cart. At oral argument on the motion, plaintiff's counsel explained why he believed that Yamaha was not liable for plaintiff's injuries: "I think you should know that in our original complaint, we were really gunning for Desert Golf, but we . . . were lead to believe that Yamaha produced the [cart]." Over Desert Golf's objection, the trial court dismissed Yamaha.
At trial, after both plaintiff and Desert Golf had presented their evidence, Yamaha moved for a directed verdict on Desert Golf's cross-claim, arguing that it neither designed nor manufactured the cart. The trial court granted Yamaha's motion, and the case went forward only as to plaintiff's claims against Desert Golf. At the close of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Desert Golf.
After trial, Yamaha submitted a statement of costs to which Desert Golf objected. The trial court sustained in part Desert Golf's objection and awarded Yamaha $9659.97 of the $26,049.71 that it had requested. Desert Golf now appeals the directed verdict issued in favor of Yamaha, while Yamaha cross-appeals the trial court's refusal to award its full costs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. section 12-2101(B).
DISCUSSION
Desert Golf argues that the Arizona product liability statutes, A.R.S. sections 12-681 through 12-687 in general, and section 684 in particular, compel Yamaha to reimburse its attorneys' fees and costs arising out of the underlying lawsuit. Yamaha, of course, rejects that conclusion. Furthermore, while both parties agree that the application of the Arizona product liability statutes ordinarily prese
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|