McCarthy v. Yamaha Motor Manuf. Corp.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
994 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (2014)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Peter McCarthy (plaintiff), an Australian citizen, was injured in Australia while riding a WaveRunner manufactured by Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation (Yamaha) (defendant), a Georgia corporation. Peter and his wife, Maureen (plaintiff), filed tort claims against Yamaha in federal district court in Georgia. Yamaha filed a motion to determine the substantive law in this case. Yamaha argued that because the injury occurred in Australia, Australian substantive law should apply. Australian law imposed a statutory cap on potential damages, and Georgia law did not. Australian statutory law only permitted punitive damages if the plaintiff demonstrated a specific intent to harm during an unlawful act, and Georgia law permitted punitive damages only for willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or for lack of care raising the presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences. Australian common law followed the English rule, permitting the prevailing party in a lawsuit to obtain attorney’s fees and other expenses, and Georgia did not. Finally, Australia permitted statutory affirmative defenses such as voluntary assumption of an obvious risk that may apply. The McCarthys argued that Georgia law should apply because the Australian laws in question violated Georgia public policy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Batten, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
