Yanmar America Corporation v. Nichols
Annotate this Case
In May 2005, Autrey Nichols purchased a Yanmar model 2210BD tractor from Northside Motors, LLC. The Yanmar tractor came equipped with a front-end loader and a "bush hog" attachment. The Yanmar tractor did not have a rollover-protection structure ("ROPS"). In 2008, Randy Nichols, the plaintiff and Autrey's brother, used the Yanmar tractor to bush hog a neighbor's property. The particular area of the property Randy was to bush hog was a field that contained a hill, the slope of which increased as he moved toward the center of the field. Randy did not "walk" the field to inspect the terrain before bush hogging the field. Randy stated that when operating the tractor, he looked forward and it appeared that the right front tire suddenly "took a dip," causing the tractor to roll over. Randy was thrown from the tractor. Randy suffered severe injuries, including an amputated right arm, a crushed hip and leg, and various other injuries. Before the accident, Randy had more than 30 years' experience operating tractors and other heavy equipment. Randy had operated the subject Yanmar tractor approximately 15 to 20 times without incident before the accident. After purchasing the tractor, Autrey purchased an English-language version of the operator's manual for the tractor. The operator's manual explained that the Yanmar model 2210BD tractor was a gray-market tractor that was originally manufactured for sale in Japan and that was subsequently purchased used by a dealer or broker and imported into the United States. The manual also contained information and warnings on the risk of rollovers, particularly while operating the tractor on slopes; stability issues and the need for ballasts when operating the tractor with a front-end loader; the importance of a ROPS; and the need to inspect unfamiliar terrain before operating the tractor. Autrey did not provide Randy with the manual and did not discuss with him any information contained in the manual. Additionally, the frontend loader and bush hog attachment that accompanied the Yanmar tractor when it was purchased also came with operator manuals, and each was affixed with English warning decals. At the close of Randy's evidence, Yanmar America moved the trial court for a preverdict judgment as a matter of law ("JML"), which the trial court denied. Yanmar America renewed its motion for a preverdict JML at the close of all the evidence, which the trial court also denied. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Randy and against Yanmar America awarding Randy $900,000 in damages. Yanmar America moved the trial court for a postverdict JML or, in the alternative, for a new trial which were also denied. Yanmar America appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that Randy failed to establish by substantial evidence that Yanmar America participated in an activity that increased his risk of harm over any risk of harm that would have existed had Yanmar America chosen not to warn potential users of the gray-market tractors in this case. Accordingly, the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying Yanmar America's motions for a JML on Randy's failure-to-warn claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.