Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
350 F.3d 316 (2003)


Facts

Natalie Calhoun rented a jet ski manufactured by Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (Yamaha) (defendant). Natalie rode the jet ski at a high speed toward a boat. Natalie yelled, but did not steer away. Natalie crashed into the boat and was killed. An eyewitness said that Natalie appeared to be “scared stiff.” The jet ski had a squeeze-finger throttle, similar to a bicycle’s hand-brake system. The Calhouns (plaintiffs), Natalie’s parents, brought a design-defect suit against Yamaha, claiming that the throttle system was unreasonably dangerous. The Calhouns proffered the testimony of three expert witnesses. First, Dr. Edward Karnes testified that the throttle design was defective because people tended to clench their fists when in stressful situations. Karnes was a psychologist, but provided no evidence or tests supporting or demonstrating his theory. Second, Albert Burton testified that Yamaha’s throttle was less safe than other throttle designs on the market. Burton was a marine-safety expert and was very knowledgeable about jet skis. Burton, however, was not an engineer and was not experienced in jet-ski throttle design. Additionally, Burton did not provide scientific evidence evaluating the safety of various jet skis. Finally, Dr. Robert Warren testified that the throttle was unsafe because the throttle so closely resembled a bicycle brake. Warren was a marine engineer, but when he wrote his report on the throttle, he had never driven a jet ski. Warren also had not conducted tests on other throttles. The district court ruled that the testimony of all three experts was unreliable and thus inadmissible. The jury found in favor of Yamaha. The Calhouns appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Scirica, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.