An Ohio appeals court has reignited a lawsuit against Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd. over the death of 21-year-old college athlete Allyson Sidloski, ruling that key questions about the boat’s design and carbon monoxide warnings must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed outright.

The decision, issued Friday by a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals, First District, overturns a previous summary judgment in favor of Yamaha. The court found that factual disputes remain about whether Yamaha’s 2018 212X jet boat was defectively designed and whether it failed to properly warn passengers of the dangers of carbon monoxide exposure.

A Boating Trip Turns Fatal

In May 2021, Sidloski, a junior soccer player at the University of Cincinnati, joined friends on a Yamaha 212X jet boat operated by John Fischer. While sitting for about half an hour on the boat’s “upper swim platform”, she complained of smelling exhaust before entering the water and vanishing beneath the lake’s surface.

Her body was recovered hours later. The coroner ruled her death a drowning, with carbon monoxide intoxication listed as a contributing factor.

The Legal Dispute: Design vs. Duty

Yamaha argued that passengers were not intended to sit on the upper swim platform while the engine was running. However, Sidloski’s estate countered that the design itself — featuring cupholders, radio controls, and padded seating — invited passengers to use the area even during operation, essentially serving as an “anti-warning.”

The court noted that expert testimony showed Sidloski was likely exposed to dangerous CO levels while on that platform, directly challenging Yamaha’s claim that exposure was “minimal.”

Warnings Questioned and Guidelines Challenged

Yamaha insisted that its warnings followed standards set by the National Marine Manufacturers Association and the American Boat and Yacht Council, but the judges emphasized that these are not mandatory rules.

The panel also rejected Yamaha’s reliance on the “read and heed” presumption, which assumes users read product warnings. Because Sidloski was merely a passenger, not the operator, there was no evidence she ever saw the warnings.

Additionally, the court observed that Yamaha’s posted warnings were small, poorly placed, and vague—failing to mention the upper swim platform specifically.

Contradictions in Safety Messaging

The court noted inconsistencies in Yamaha’s operating manual and labels. One section warns passengers to stay away from the boat’s rear while the engine is running, yet another instructs operators that idling the engine near swimmers is acceptable.

Experts for the Sidloski family testified that Yamaha could have installed catalytic converters to reduce carbon monoxide emissions or eliminated rear seating to prevent exposure altogether. These points, the panel said, present clear questions for a jury.

A Step Toward Justice

Attorney Paul R. Kerridge of Durst Kerridge, representing the Sidloski family, praised the ruling as a milestone for product safety accountability.

“This decision paves the way for justice for the Sidloski family and creates a legacy for Ally,” Kerridge said. “It sets a precedent that companies must consciously and deliberately ensure their products’ safety.”

What’s Next

The case now heads toward a potential jury trial, where the focus will be whether Yamaha’s design and warnings were defective and whether these failures contributed to Sidloski’s tragic death.

Judges Terry Nestor, Ginger Bock, and Rich Moore presided over the appeal.

Sidloski’s estate is represented by Alex J. Durst and Paul R. Kerridge of Durst Kerridge; John J. Uustal and David M. Hammer of Kelley Uustal PLC; Charles M. Rittgers of Rittgers & Nakajima; and Robert F. Linton Jr. and April M. Bensimon of The Linton Law Firm Co. LPA.

Yamaha is represented by G. Todd Hoffpauir of Montgomery Jonson LLP, and Wendy Lumish and Frank Hosley of Bowman and Brooke LLP.