Jet ski crashes into boat that suddenly turns in front of it. $21.7 million product liability and negligence. Los Angeles County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  On July 4, 2008, plaintiff was riding as a passenger on a Polaris
  Virage jet ski or personal watercraft (PWC) on the Colorado River, operated by then-17-year-old Andrew Gutierrez, when it collided with a 2004 Sea-Doo Utopia jet boat being operated by Douglas Lane, who was towing his three grandchildren on an inflatable raft. Lane had a blood alcohol content of 0.224% (three times over the legal limit) and pled guilty to three felonies for causing the accident and injury to the PWC riders.

  Witnesses testified that Gutierrez was speeding, doing figure eights and jumping waves when the river was extremely crowded. Lane suddenly turned in front of Gutierrez. One witness testified that he saw the Utopia turn suddenly and the crash was "instantaneous."

  Gutierrez was unable to steer away from the oncoming boat once he released his throttle. Defendant boat driver, Douglas Lane and his son/passenger Steven Lane both testified that Gutierrez was turning the handlebars but that the direction of the PWC did not change. There was also expert testimony that the inbound speed of the PWC versus the impact speed was hugely different, suggesting that Gutierrez had released the throttle (during which time he would not be able to steer away).

  The Riverside County Sheriff's Department concluded that Lane and Gutierrez were the sole causes of the accident for violating the rules of navigation and further determined that off-throttle steering played no role in the accident.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That Defendant Lane was negligent for operating his boat while
  having a blood alcohol level over three times the legal limit and for turning in front of the PWC.

  Further, that Polaris was negligent in its design of the Virage and negligent in failing to retrofit the Virage with an off-throttle steering (OTS) device (thus,it would lose its ability to steer when an inexperienced operator would let off of the throttle in an emergency).

  That the PWC should have had retractable rudders, a brake (reverse bucket) or a throttle reapplication device.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendant Lane contended that Gutierrez and Polaris, not he, caused the accident.  Lane contended that Gutierrez appeared to be heading directly at the towable raft that his grandchildren were riding in, and that he defensively turned his boat in front of the PWC to protect the grandchildren.

  Defendant Polaris contended that the accident was caused by the negligence of Lane and recklessness of Gutierrez; that the Virage was a safe, well-designed watercraft; that the U.S. Coast Guard made a finding that PWCs without OTS were not defective; that OTS devices don't work and don't help prevent accidents; that the manual and on-board warnings tell the operator that they need thrust to steer; that none of the OTS devices plaintiff talked about were feasible for use on the Virage when it was manufactured; that given the speed of the PWC and how suddenly and unexpectedly Lane turned in front of it, the crash was unavoidable and no OTS would have made any difference; and that the 2001 Virage performed better off-throttle than competitors' models with OTS.