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.
