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.
