Date: 11-02-2015

Case Style: Brent Smith and Stephanie Smith v. Polaris Sales, Inc., Polaris Industries, Inc., Great Plans, Inc. d/b/a Great Plains Equipment Sales of Duncan

Case Number: CJ-2014-1432

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Tye Smith and Susan Curtiss

Defendant's Attorney: Joe Farris and Jeremy Ward

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Brent Smith and Stephanie Smith sued Polaris Sales, Inc., Polaris Industries, Inc., Great Plans, Inc. d/b/a Great Plains Equipment Sales of Duncan on negligence and products liability theories claiming:

1. This is an action for products liability and negligence which caused personal injuries to the plthntiffs resulting from the use and operation of a motor vehicle.
I. PARTIES
2. Plaintiffs, Brent Smith and Stephanie Smith, are husband and wife. They reside in and are citizens of Marlow in Stephims County, Oklahoma.
3. Defendant Polaris Sales, Inc., is a foreign corporatiou organized and existing according to the laws of the State of Minnesota, but doing business in the State of Oklahoma at all times material hereto Defendant may be served with process by serving the registered agent for service, Corporation Service Company, 115 S.W. 89th Street, Oklahoma City, in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, 73139.
4. Defendant Polaris Industries, Inc., is a foreign corporation organized and existing according to the laws of the State of Delaware, but doing business in the State of Oklahoma at all times material hereto. Defendant may be served with process by serving the registered agent for service, CT Corporation System, Inc., at 100 5. 5th Street No. 1075, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55402.
5. Defendant, Great Plains, Inc., a/k/a Great Plains Equipment Sales of Duncan, is an Oklahoma corporation which is incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, and which does business in Oklahoma. Defendant may be served with process by serving the registered agent for service, William H. Clark, Jr. at 1300 N. Broadway, Ada, Oklahoma, 74820.
6. After Plaintiff, Stephanie Smith, was injured she was hospitalized at OU Medical Center in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and incurred $165,020.00 of her medical expenses in Oklahoma County, thereby causing the majority of her past medical expenses to be sustained in Oklahoma County.
7. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.
II. FACTS
8. On or about October 21, 2012, Plaintiff Stephanie Smith was riding in a 2012 Polaris Ranger RZR XP 900(VIN#4XAJT9EA6(B600524) in Waynoka, Oklahoma, when she had an accident involving the ATV. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff Stephanie Smith was properly seated and wearing her seat belt. However, despite being properly restrained, Plaintiff Stephanie Smith suffered serious injuries when the ATV which she was riding in failed to protect her.
9. The Defendants herein manufactured and/or sold the subject
AW.
10. Defendants, Polaris Sales, li-ic., and Polaris Industries, Inc.,
manufactured the subject ATV, Polaris Ranger RZR XP 900
(VIN#4XAJT9EA6CB600524), and Defendant, Great Plains, Inc., a/k/a Great
Plains Equipment Sales of Duncan, sold the subject ATV, Polaris Ranger RZR
XP 900 (VIN# 4XAJT9EA6CB600524).
III. CAUSE(S) OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS
POL4.RIS SALES, INC., AND PolARis INDUSTRIES. INC.
11. It was entirely foreseeable to and well-known by Defendants that accidents and incidents involving its products, such as occurred herein, would on occasion take place during the normal and ordinary use of said
ATV.
12. The injuries and damages complained of herein occurred because the ATV in question was not reasonably fit for unintended, but
clearly foreseeable accidents and thcidents. The ATV in question was unreasonably dangerous in the event it should be involved in an accident.
13. Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, assembled, and/or tested said ATV in question to be unreasonably dangerous and defective within the meaning of Section 402(A) Restatement (Second) Torts, in that the ATV was unreasonably dangerous as designed, manufactured, assembled, marketed, and/or tested because of the following detects:
a. the roll bar was weak and structurally inadequate;
b. the roll bar failed to stay upright;
c. the roll bar failed to maintain survival space;
d. the roll bar failed to distribute energy and crash forces;
e. the roll bar violated principles of crashworthiness;
f. the roll bar is not properly attached to the structure;
g. Defendants failed to conduct any type of engineering analysis and testing that evaluated how the roll bar would perform under dynamic loading;
h. the ATV violates principles of risk versus utility as well as consumer expectation;
i. Defendants had notice that its roll bars were failing and yet the manufacturer took no steps to redesign, strengthen or rethforce the roll bar system.
14. Defendants were negligent in the design, manufacture, assembly, marketing, and/or testing of the ATV in question.
15. The foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendants were a producing and/or proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ damages.
16. The foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendants were a producing and/or proximate cause of Plaintiff Stephanie Sm[th’s serious injuries.
IV. CAUSE(S) OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANT GREAT PLAINS,
INC., A/K/A G&T PLAINS EQUIPMENT SALES OF DUNCAN
17. Defendant knew the ATV’s were rolling over and the roll bar was failing at an alarmingly high rate yet failed to apprise would be consumers.
18. Defendant represented that the ATV was safe, durable, and rugged and that the roll bar would provide extra protection in the event of a rollover event.
19. Defendant’s representations were false, misleading and done so as to motivate Plaintiffs to buy the subject ATV.
20. The defects in the vehicle, above stated, were present in the vehicle at the time it left the possession and control of Defendant.
21. Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff’s damages, above stated, for allowing a defective and unreasonably dangerous product to enter the stream of conunerce.
V. DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFFS
22. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff Stephanie Smith has suffered physical pain and mental anguish in the past, physical pain and mental anguish that in the future, disfigurement sustained in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future, and loss of earning capacity in the future.
23. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs, Brent Smith and Stephanie Smith, have become obligated to pay necessary and reasonable medical expenses in the past and will, in all likelihood, into the future for Plaintiff Stephanie Smith.
24. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff Brent Smith has suffered past and future: loss of care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value, loss of companionship and society, loss of consortium, emotional distress, and mental anguish as a result of the serious injuries to Plaintiff Stephaxiie Smith.
25. The above and foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendants, resulting in the injuries to Plaintiff Stephanie Smith have caused actual damages to Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
VI. PRAYER
26. For the reasons presented herein, Plaintiffs pray that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer, and that upon a final jury trial of this cause, Plaintiffs recover judgment against Defendants for:
a. actual damages;
b. prejudgment and post-judgment interest beginning October 21, 2012;
c. costs of suit; and
d. all other relief the Court deems proper.
27. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: