230 Cal. App. 4th 1442
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Two teen passengers (Haley Colombo and Jessica Slagel) fell off the back of a BRP Sea-Doo PWC after the operator made sharp maneuvers; both sustained severe rectal/vaginal injuries from the PWC jet-thrust nozzle while wearing ordinary swimwear.
- Plaintiffs never saw BRP's console warning (which warned operators and said riders must wear a wetsuit bottom) because the operator was seated and blocked their view; the operator gave no safety instructions or protective clothing.
- Jury found BRP, the PWC owner (Adamson), and the operator/employee (Kohl) each one-third liable; awards: Haley ≈ $3.385M compensatory + $1.5M punitive; Jessica ≈ $1.063M compensatory + $1.5M punitive.
- Plaintiffs proceeded under federal maritime common law (admiralty/LOLA issues were litigated earlier; district court found LOLA did not limit owner’s liability).
- Trial evidence included plaintiffs’ testimony about what they would have done if warned, expert testimony that the console warning placement was inadequate and that a rear warning would be inexpensive and effective, BRP internal testimony acknowledging prior orifice-injury claims, and a BRP safety video showing riders in ordinary swimwear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of causation for warning defect under maritime law | Plaintiffs: BRP's inadequate placement of warnings was a substantial factor; plaintiffs would have heeded a visible warning. | BRP: Plaintiffs’ “would-have-heeded” testimony and expert causation testimony were inadmissible/self-serving and insufficient. | Court: Substantial evidence supports causation (plaintiff testimony + expert on warning placement); affirmed. |
| Punitive damages standard and sufficiency | Plaintiffs: BRP knew of prior orifice injuries and consciously declined effective passenger warnings, supporting punitive damages for reckless/callous disregard. | BRP: Evidence shows it warned operators and tested vessels; prior warnings/efforts negate requisite state of mind; punitive awards unsupported. | Court: Preponderance standard under maritime law met; substantial evidence (internal testimony, prior claims, experts) supports punitive awards; affirmed. |
| Whether Exxon mandates 1:1 punitive-to-compensatory ratio in maritime cases | Plaintiffs: Exxon does not create a bright-line 1:1 rule applicable to all maritime cases; ratio depends on culpability. | BRP: Punitive awards must be reduced to equal compensatory damages per Exxon. | Court: Exxon did not establish a categorical 1:1 limit; ratio is fact-dependent; awards (Haley <1:1; Jessica ~3.78:1) not excessive; affirmed. |
| Admissibility of evidence about other BRP orifice claims, safety video, and warning-label evidence | Plaintiffs: Such evidence is relevant to BRP’s knowledge/reprehensibility and to adequacy of warnings. | BRP: Evidence was irrelevant, hearsay, or unduly prejudicial; some proffered defense evidence was excluded unfairly. | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting prior-claim evidence, experts, and portions of video; exclusions (e.g., mini-trial facts, post-accident remedial changes, Coast Guard approval) were proper or harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (maritime punitive-damages review; Court endorsed ratio-based limits and applied a 1:1 ratio in that case)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (constitutional guideposts for punitive-damages review)
- Quigley v. McClellan, 214 Cal.App.4th 1276 (2013) (articulating substantial-evidence standard on appeal)
- Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., 21 Cal.4th 71 (1999) (substantial-factor causation in products-liability context)
- Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal maritime law governs products-liability claims and is informed by Restatement of Torts)
- Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 272 P.3d 827 (Wash. 2012) (Exxon did not announce a universal 1:1 maritime punitive cap; ratio depends on culpability)