Products Liability Law Reporter
Recreational Products & Equipment
You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.
If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!
Join the Products Liability SectionAlready a subscriber? Log in
Lack of Minimum Contacts With Nevada Warranted Dismissal of Claims Against Company That Markets Japanese Motorcycle Helmets
February/March 2019A Nevada federal district court held that dismissal of a company that markets Japanese motorcycle helmets was proper where the company lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the state.
Kambra Cooper’s son was killed in a motorcycle crash while wearing a Shoei helmet. She sued Shoei Safety Helmet Corp. (SSHC), the California company that markets Shoei helmets, alleging that the helmet was defective and led to her son’s death. SSHC moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
Granting the motion, the district court analyzed whether it had specific jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims. Citing case law, the court noted that for specific jurisdiction to attach, a defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in a state, the plaintiff’s claims must arise out of those forum-related activities, and the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. In this case, the court found, SSHC does not manufacture, import, distribute, or sell Shoei helmets in the state of Nevada. Additionally, SSHC did not place any helmets into the stream of commerce that might have ended up in Nevada.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant marketed Shoei helmets in Nevada. The plaintiff has not specified what kind of advertising the defendant reportedly used to market its helmets and how frequently this may have occurred, the court said. Without such details, the plaintiff has proffered only mere allegations to support her theory that SSHC has marketed helmets in Nevada. Without more, or proof that the company has a physical presence in the state, specific jurisdiction is not warranted here. Therefore, the court dismissed, allowing the plaintiff to amend her complaint if she can provide specific allegations about SSHC’s activities in Nevada.
Citation: Cooper v. Shoei Safety Helmet Corp., 2018 WL 5499538 (D. Nev. Oct. 29, 2018).
Comment: In Narvaez v. Wadsworth, 165 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018), Nelson Narvaez alleged that Arai Helmet Americas, Inc., and affiliated companies were liable for injuries he suffered in a motorcycle crash in which his helmet came loose and failed to protect him. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the helmet—which was secured by straps and D-rings, in addition to a snap fastener—was dangerous and unfit for its intended use if used with only the snap fastener. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s strict products liability and negligence claims. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion. Affirming, the appellate court rejected the defense argument that the danger of failing to secure the helmet with both the D-rings and snap fastener was open and obvious. Citing case law discussing open and obvious dangers, such as from unguarded platform edges and moving industrial machines, the court acknowledged that there is no duty to warn of a hazard that is open and obvious as a matter of common sense. Here, however, there are fact issues regarding whether the danger of using the helmet’s snap fastener without the D-rings was open and obvious, the court said. Therefore, the court concluded that summary judgment for the defense is not warranted. AAJ member Richard Adam, New York City, represented the plaintiff in this case.