There have been numerous deaths caused by riding lawn mowers. However, the statistics are not all that compelling. One recent study estimates 75 deaths per year from riding lawn mowers. That’s one death per 102,000 lawn mowers, which is far lower than in the Griggs case. In that case, the issue was whether Toro had a duty to make lighters child-proof. The probabilities of these fatalities must be weighed against the utility of Toro’s conduct.
Toro Lawnmower
The time cutter model by Toro was manufactured between 2010 and 2011 and is the subject of a Toro Lawnmower Lawsuit. It is a 552-pound, residential ZRT riding lawn mower with a Kawasaki engine and a three-gallon fuel tank. The mower does not have a Rollover Protection System. This product did not meet the American National Standard Institute B71.1-2003 Consumer Turf Care standard.
To evaluate whether this Toro lawnmower case has merit, we first must look at the likelihood of injury. The CPSC estimates that one person will die from an errant lawn tractor every year, which is lower than the estimated number of lawn tractors in use. Further, the CPSC incidents and reports are not averaged, so they are not comparable to the number of lawn mowers in use. And, the CPSC reports and consumer reports are not conclusive as to whether a particular Toro lawnmower is dangerous.
Tri-State Turf and Irrigation Inc.
This case focuses on the cost of a Toro lawnmower. The company claims that its product is too expensive due to excessive R&D, advertising, and the outdated distributor-dealer network. But in fact, the manufacturer has a history of overcharging consumers for its products. The company has been sued for this reason, as well.
To survive in the consumer market, Toro has made some significant strategic moves. In September, it acquired Dingo Digging Systems, a manufacturer of a utility loader designed for landscape contractors. That year, it also acquired Exmark Manufacturing Company, which produced zero-turning-radius riding mowers and mid-sized walk-behind power mowers.
ANSI B71.1
If you are interested in filing a Toro Lawnmower Lawsuit, then you are in luck. There are now thousands of lawsuits filed against manufacturers for violating ANSI B71.1 standards. If your Toro lawnmower is one of the thousands, you should read this article carefully. This will help you decide if your lawsuit is worth filing. The Toro Lawnmower Manual is a great resource, as it can give you a better idea of what to do next.
The lawsuit asserts that Toro’s commercially marketed ZTR mowers should have rollover protection systems (ROPS). This is because published industry standards recognize that all tractors are susceptible to rollover and other accidents. Toro’s ZTR lawnmower Lawsuit ANSI B71.1 highlights these deficiencies. Plaintiffs claim that Toro should have complied with the standards for residential ZTR mowers, and thereby evade liability.
Patent infringement
A jury in Omaha has awarded $24.2 million to the Beatrice, Nebraska unit of Toro Lawnmower Co. in a patent infringement lawsuit. This award is one of the largest ever given in Nebraska. Attorneys familiar with patent infringement cases say the award is likely to increase as the lawsuit progresses. Here are three key points to keep in mind during the trial. First, consider what constitutes “infringing design.”
The claims claiming infringement of the ‘475 patent discuss the advantages of isolating an operator’s body from vibrations and shocks. The specification cites Figure 1 and Figure 2 to support its claim. However, the Patent Office found that the claims do not require the operator’s arms to be suspended on the platform. Toro’s argument was rejected because the controls were fixed to the chassis and not the operator’s arms.
Duty to warn
A Toro lawnmower should come with a duty to warn decal to protect your neighbors. This decal is designed to stop your lawnmower within three seconds after you release the control bail. If the blade is still spinning when you release the control bail, you may hear metal-to-metal sounds. If so, you should adjust the blade brake. Keeping the blade brake in good condition will also help keep your neighbors safe.
Although Toro did not make the warnings more detailed, Monahan argues that the warnings are inadequate. The manufacturer of the lawnmower had a duty to warn about the risks associated with the operation and to design the mower so that users are more aware of the potential dangers. The plaintiff must prove that the Toro warnings were insufficient to protect users from harm. Fortunately, she managed to file a lawsuit.
