Polaris UTV Rollover Protection Systems Falsely Advertised, Not OSHA Compliant, Class Action Alleges

Polaris faces a proposed class action over claims that the rollover protection system on each of its 2015-2019 utility terrain vehicles (UTVs) complies with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.

According to the 54-page suit, none of the rollover protection systems (ROPS) on Polaris UTVs are compliant with OSHA requirements, and the manufacturer has been able to sidestep federal safety regulations given UTVs, unlike ATVs, are a relatively new kind of recreational vehicle and subject to decades-old and easily gamed safety tests that were initially designed for farming tractors.

More specifically, the plaintiffs allege Polaris fraudulently “cheats” testing for its UTVs’ rollover protection systems, in part by using the incorrect vehicle weight. The suit also claims Polaris improperly uses a tool known as a “load distributor,” which spreads out the force applied to the vehicle, to ensure each UTV “passes” OSHA testing.

Ultimately, the defendants have harmed consumers by failing to provide accurate and truthful information about the true characteristics of their recreational vehicles, the lawsuit alleges.

“Polaris tells all of their customers that their ROPS are safe because they meet [OSHA standards],” the suit says. “They do not.”

UTVs versus ATVs

Introduced into the U.S. market in the late 1990s, a UTV utilizes four or more low-pressure tires designed for off-road use and is intended by the manufacturer to be used primarily for recreation, the lawsuit begins. A UTV, unlike an all-terrain vehicle (ATV), has traditional, automobile-like seating with bench or bucket seats and a restraint system, and is equipped with a steering wheel. According to the case, a main distinction between the two types of recreational vehicles is that an ATV is defined in detail under federal law as “any motorized, off-highway vehicle designed to travel on 3 or 4 wheels, having a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering control.”

UTVs, on the other hand, more closely resemble a golf cart, with a throttle and brake pedals, the suit continues. A significant difference, however, is that while a golf cart can travel roughly 15 miles per hour or less, UTVs such as those made by Polaris, which can retail in excess of $20,000, can achieve top speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour, as their engines boast up to 181 horsepower, the lawsuit says.

New vehicles call for new regulations

Importantly, Polaris UTVs are subject to product safety standards administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) – not the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the complaint states. Per the suit, UTVs are considered “consumer products” regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Act. Central to the lawsuit’s allegations is the relative newness of UTVs, which gained popularity in the 2000s and quickly required safety regulations in light of mounting reports of injuries and deaths.

In December 2008, the CPSC met with representatives of the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) to discuss the development of a standard of safety, including stability standards, for UTVs, the case says. The following year, the CPSC began the process of considering regulatory action for UTVs and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it noted that farm vehicles have maximum speeds of 25 mph or less, whereas UTVs could exceed 30 mph.

The CPSC, the suit says, identified in its databases 181 events involving UTVs, including 116 fatalities and 152 other injuries ranging in severity, between January 2003 and August 2009. According to the case, 69 percent of injuries occurred in rollover accidents. The complaint adds:

By April 2013, the CPSC was aware of 428 incidents resulting in 231 fatalities and 388 other injuries. 150 of the 231 deaths were in rollover accidents.”

Alleged “cheating” of rollover safety tests

To avoid being hit with forthcoming CPSC regulations, Polaris and others in the industry allegedly set up their own safety standards for UTVs. This was accomplished through the ROHVA, which the lawsuit claims is controlled by Polaris.

According to the suit, Polaris and other manufacturers decided to adopt the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) weight-based rollover protection system test designed for tractors. This test applies force to the ROPS and measures the deflection caused by the force, according to the case. Too much deflection and a rollover protection system would fail the test. Crucially, the amount of force applied during the test depends on tractor weight, which by definition includes a vehicle’s protective frame or enclosure, fuel and other components required for normal use, the suit says.

The complaint simplifies how “tractor weight” should be calculated for purposes of the test, stating [emphasis ours]:

Thus, the weight to be tested is either the gross vehicle weight (about 2,000 to 2,400 pounds[)], or the 110 pounds multiplied by the maximum power take off horse power. The statute specifically indicates if the tractor is not one where you can measure the ‘power take off’ horsepower, or PTO, then 95 percent of net engine flywheel horsepower is used.”

Each “class vehicle,” listed at the bottom of this post, was tested by Polaris based on gross vehicle weight, the suit says. The manufacturer is alleged to have “intentionally refused” to test at 110 pounds times either the maximum power take-off horsepower or 95 percent of the net engine flywheel horsepower despite the fact the vehicles are lighter and stronger than the tractors on which the testing was formulated:

The Polaris vehicles are lighter and have much stronger engines than farm tractors. Hence, their gross vehicle weights are comparatively lower, and 110 pounds times their PTO horsepower (or 95% of the net fly wheel horsepower) is going to be larger than that of the farm tractors.

In fact, the gross vehicle weight, due the [sic] specifications of the Class Vehicles should never be used for the OSHA tests. 110 pounds times the PTO horsepower (or 95% of the net fly wheel horsepower) of each Class Vehicle is substantially greater than the gross vehicle weights.”

For example, the suit says Polaris tested one of its UTVs at 2,750 pounds when the calculation should have used a much higher number for the tractor weight:

For example, the 2019 RZR XP 4 Turbo is tested at 2750 pounds (the gross vehicle weight is 2713 pounds). It has 168 horsepower. 95% of 168 horsepower is 159.6. Rounding down, would be 159. So, 110 pounds multiplied by 159 is 17,490. The correct ‘W’ or tractor weight in the test, should be 17,490 pounds. Polaris intentionally refused to use the correct tractor weight of approximately 17,490 pounds. Instead, it used 2,750 pounds. Polaris did not comply with the test.”

Despite the fact that the defendants have advertised to the public that each UTV sold by the company has passed OSHA testing, not a single Polaris UTV has been tested using the proper tractor weight pursuant to OSHA regulations, the complaint charges.

As the suit tells it, Polaris also cheats when it performs side-load testing. Instead of following OSHA guidelines and applying force to a single side of a UTV, the company, according to the case, uses a “load distributor” to instead distribute the load parallel across the top of the enclosure to the other side of the vehicle. Doing so allows Polaris to ensure that every UTV passes the side-load tests, the complaint claims.

Who does the lawsuit cover?

The lawsuit looks to represent consumers in California, Oregon, Nevada and Texas who bought any of the below-listed “class vehicles” within the last four years.

Which Polaris UTVs are involved in the class action?

According to the lawsuit, the UTV models touted by the defendants as having OSHA-compliant rollover protection, i.e. the “class vehicles,” include, but are not limited to:

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.