. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 143917

$________ Product liability Defective product Negligent repair Defective exhaust system Negligent installation of retrofit exhaust system in boat Breach of warranty Violation of Unfair Trade Practices Act.

United States District Court, District of Connecticut

In this product liability matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant sold the plaintiff a boat with a defective exhaust system and then negligently repaired the boat causing it to fail to operate. The defendant denied the allegations and disputed liability. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent.

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, purchased a Stingray Sundancer ________ from the defendant in ________. Shortly after receiving the boat, the plaintiffs experienced problems and notified the dealer. The boat was returned and allegedly repaired during the winter of ________-________. Despite the allegedly updating of the exhaust system that was performed, the plaintiffs maintained that the boat still did not operate correctly. The plaintiff husband took the boat to the marina for repairs and fresh-water flushed the engines in June ________. The next day, the plaintiffs contended that the engines were hydro-locked and would not start.

The plaintiffs maintained that they were sold a defective boat and the defendant was negligent in failing to instruct them on how to flush the engines after retrofitting the exhaust system. The plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant, alleging a product liability claim of defective product, breach of warranty and failure to provide warnings that the boats original exhaust system had a propensity to ingest water. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to properly repair the exhaust system and failed to instruct or provide instructions to the plaintiffs on how to flush the engines with the newly installed exhaust system. The plaintiff alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act since it retrofitted the boats exhaust system without warning or instruction to the plaintiffs.

The defendant denied the allegations and maintained that the plaintiffs were negligent in their operation of the boat. The defendant denied that there was any breach of the warranty.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The jury determined that the defendant violated the Connecticut Product Liability Act by breaching its express warranty and providing a defective and dangerous product. The jury did determine that the plaintiffs were comparatively negligent and were 3% negligent. The jury awarded the sum of $________ for violation of the Product Liability Act and $________ for the negligence claim.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.