Is my Onewheel case a personal injury claim or a product liability claim?

In Halikoytakis v. Future Motion, the plaintiff alleged he was suddenly ejected from his board, then pursued strict liability and negligence claims seeking both economic and non-economic damages for his resulting injuries.

In Ibarra v. Future Motion, the plaintiff alleged his Onewheel+ stopped and caused a fall, then based his claims on alleged defects in the design, manufacture, and warnings.

Product liability claims generally fall into a few recognized categories, and Onewheel cases have used each of them.

• Manufacturing defects: your particular board departed from its intended specifications during production
• Design defects: the underlying engineering created an unreasonable danger, even when the board was built correctly
• Failure to warn: you did not receive adequate warnings about a known risk before your accident

Not every case succeeds on these theories. In Hill v. Future Motion, the plaintiff alleged sudden acceleration and a failure to respond, but the court granted summary judgment for Future Motion after finding insufficient evidence of an actual defect. That outcome shows that alleging a defect and proving one are different steps, and both matter to your case.

The federal Onewheel litigation, consolidated as MDL No. 3087, involves similar allegations that boards could unexpectedly stop or shut off and throw riders. Those remain allegations in ongoing litigation rather than a finding that every Onewheel shares the same defect.

How The Law Offices of Sean M. Cleary can help with your Onewheel injury claim

Building your case means documenting both halves at once: your injuries and the specific defect that caused them. Our team gathers your medical records alongside the technical evidence needed to support a product liability theory. Contact us for a free consultation to talk through your Onewheel accident and your options.