Documented incident · May 8, 2026
I bought heavy machinery through Amazon because I thought I was protected.
During the mower’s first use, a projectile struck my left shin. The machine is now out of service. This record brings together the injury, the equipment, the seller’s instructions, Amazon’s response, and the pending lawsuit.
PurchaseApril 29, 2026
InjuryMay 8, 2026
FiledSeptember 1, 2026
StatusLitigation pending
At a glance
01
The essential facts
I selected this mower for more than two acres of difficult hillside property. It appeared to offer substantially more capacity than a smaller competing tracked mower, and I deliberately purchased through Amazon because I believed the platform offered greater protection and accountability for a nearly $3,000 machine.
How to read this site
Dates and quotations are tied to records where available. Technical observations are presented as observations, not as engineering conclusions. Disputed issues remain for resolution in court.
Before the purchase
02
Why I chose Amazon—and what I reviewed
Before spending nearly $3,000, I compared remote-controlled tracked mowers offered for the same general hillside-cutting purpose. I chose the larger FenkeYiHui mower for its advertised 18 horsepower and 31.5-inch cutting width, but the way the cutting systems were presented also shaped my understanding of how this type of mower operated.
The protection I believed I was buying
My confidence in Amazon was not merely a gut feeling.
As a longtime paid Prime member, my repeated experience with Amazon returns led me to believe Amazon would stand behind products sold through its marketplace. Amazon also maintained a written A-to-Z Claims Process for defective products purchased through Amazon.com. I did not understand the details of that separate injury-claims process before this incident, but its written existence confirms that Amazon had established a mechanism for handling more than an ordinary return.
The preserved terms state that the process applies to physical products purchased through Amazon.com regardless of who sold them, and is intended to address requests involving personal injury or property damage allegedly caused by defective products.
The terms say an offer may include the product’s purchase price and, subject to the process and Amazon’s decision, compensation of up to $1 million for medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage.
The same terms state that the process is not insurance or a warranty, does not guarantee payment, and allows Amazon to reject a request. This site does not describe A-to-Z as an unconditional refund promise.
How my case entered that process
In my first preserved customer-service chat, I asked for product-liability and insurance-claim information after reporting the injury and machine failures. The representative instructed me to dispose of the defective mower, assured me that a full refund had been requested, and routed the matter into A-to-Z. My request involved both the promised purchase-price refund and the substantially larger consequences of the injury.
Source: preserved “A-to-Z Claims Process Terms and Conditions,” last updated August 10, 2021, together with the Amazon customer-service chat preserved in this record.
Subject mower
Movement illustrated, hardware concealed
The seller’s image uses a blue circular motion effect around the cutting carrier. It does not expose the bolt, spacer, or blade-mounting hardware, and it does not explain impact behavior. Even so, the presentation visually communicates movement within the cutting system rather than an immovable blade assembly.
Important: the machine changes here
This is a different mower sold separately on Amazon.
The material below is not from FenkeYiHui and does not depict the mower involved in the injury. It shows an AIWEIYA AWY-550—a separate competing tracked mower I evaluated on Amazon—solely to compare how another manufacturer mounted blades intended to pivot.
Separate Amazon competitor
Individual blades shown at different angles
This competing mower’s underside image shows individual blades attached to a central carrier at visibly different angles. That presentation reinforced my understanding that the individual blades were mounted to permit movement.
Different machine · comparison video
AIWEIYA’s shoulder-bolt pivot connection
This preserved AIWEIYA blade-replacement video shows the separate competing mower—not the FenkeYiHui mower involved in the injury. The demonstrator removes and reinstalls an individual blade using a purpose-built shoulder bolt. Its smooth, unthreaded shoulder passes through the blade opening and provides a pivot surface while tightening occurs against the mounting structure. The video is comparison evidence; it does not, by itself, establish the factory specification for the FenkeYiHui mower.
Website copy shown here is compressed for viewing. The original 51.8-second file remains preserved in the evidence folder.
Why this comparison matters
The FenkeYiHui graphic did not disclose its mounting hardware, but the absence of a hardware close-up does not erase the movement shown in the seller’s own illustration. The competitor material supplies a visible example of how movement can be retained after a fastener is tightened. The condition of the mower actually delivered must still be evaluated from its physical hardware, seller instructions, and expert analysis.
Chronology
03
From delivery to litigation
Order placed
FenkeYiHui 18 HP tracked slope mower purchased through Amazon for $2,599 plus $200.12 tax.
Delivery, first use, and injury
The mower arrived early. After charging and setup, the first cutting pass ended when a projectile struck the lower left shin. The gasoline engine continued running while attempted stop controls did not shut it down.
Medical treatment
Urgent care, sutures, repeat imaging, orthopedic care, antibiotics, crutches, and MRI. The MRI documented a tibial bone contusion or stress reaction, a longitudinal split tear of the peroneus brevis tendon, Achilles tendinosis, and surrounding inflammation.
Amazon notified of the injury
During an Amazon customer-service chat, I supplied a written account of the injury and machine failures and requested product-liability and insurance-claim information. The preserved chat shows an Amazon representative directing me to dispose of the defective item and stating that an A-to-Z refund had been requested and that I would receive a full refund from Amazon.
A-to-Z requested records, then closed the file
Amazon requested medical records and bills within 72 hours. Four days later, Amazon wrote that it had not received the requested information and was closing the file. A separate May 24 seller message shows YiHui knew the Amazon claim was under review and asked whether I would withdraw it.
Denial, appeal, and eventual refund
On July 12, Amazon customer service confirmed that the A-to-Z Guarantee refund request had been denied and stated that an appeal was submitted. At 8:46 p.m. on September 1—the same date the lawsuit was filed—Amazon processed the full $2,799.12 refund and recorded the reason as “Customer return.”
Control and mechanical failures
The original remote failed after limited use. A replacement later lost communication at close range, and the machine reportedly continued until it ran out of fuel. Exhaust hardware also loosened and fell away.
Blade assembly examined
One blade position lacked its blade and mounting hardware. The remaining position held a blade fragment on a substantially bent bolt. The seller was asked for exact specifications and sent a video demonstrating an assembly sequence.
Lawsuit, service, and discovery
The complaint was filed in Cowlitz County Superior Court on September 1. Both Amazon entities were served September 4. First interrogatories were mailed September 8.
Product page removed after criticism exchange
After YiHui asked that criticisms be reconsidered and I declined, the seller-specific results page showed two products rather than the three I had previously observed. The mower link associated with my order then returned Amazon’s missing-page screen, removing public access to that listing’s product details and product-review history. The timing is documented; who removed it and why remain unresolved.
Aisinuo conversations preserved
A company contact identified itself as a manufacturer. Jason, communicating through an Aisinuo-branded account, identified the same basic chassis and hood design, described freely pivoting two-blade hardware, and stated that the seller-provided installation video was not produced or supplied by his company. He said he would seek a factory review. Read the statements and screenshots.
Control and warning evidence
04
The remote changed. The product identity changed. The manual was missing.
The remote delivered with this mower failed after limited use. A replacement remote later lost communication at close range. By September, the Amazon page connected to my April 29 purchase showed a materially different red remote, while the earlier product identifier and its review history were no longer presented in the same way.
The yellow remote supplied with the mower
Original remote
It stopped functioning after the mower’s first limited use and had an effective range of roughly 25 feet. Opening it revealed the photographed internal condition.
Replacement remote
After approximately three to four minutes, communication was lost from roughly 10–12 feet away. Control and shutdown attempts did not stop the mower, which continued running until it exhausted its fuel.
Later listing
The Amazon page linked to the April 29 purchase later displayed a different red remote with a prominent emergency-stop control. That red controller was listing material, not the controller originally delivered with the mower.
What was shown when purchased—versus what Amazon shows now
Why this is not a realistic purchase record
The current image rewrites the visual history of the transaction.
A present-day product page can describe what is sold now. It should not be mistaken for evidence of what accompanied the April 29 purchase. The contemporaneously preserved page and the delivered equipment show a yellow controller without the red emergency-stop button. The later page visually associates the April purchase with equipment that was not supplied.
A changed remote, a changed ASIN—and a missing review history
Was this a genuine new product identity, or did it also separate the mower from earlier reviews?
The earlier page became unavailable while a substantially similar mower appeared with the different controller and a different Amazon Standard Identification Number. Reviews associated with the earlier identifier—including a report concerning remote-control disconnection—did not carry forward to the newer listing. An ASIN can change for legitimate catalog reasons; the documented sequence does not, by itself, establish motive. It does make the reason for the change, and the treatment of the earlier review history, material questions.
Interrogatories 30–32 ask Amazon to explain the identifier change, identify discontinued or prior ASINs, and produce the reviews associated with those identifiers.
Listing changes documented September 12, 2026
The original page disappeared. Two different replacements were visible.
My Amazon order history still identifies the FenkeYiHui mower ordered April 29, but the original product image is gone and the original listing is no longer publicly accessible from that record. At the same time, FenkeYiHui continued offering a substantially similar mower with the newer red controller under ASIN B0HBW9Z44N.
A newly launched seller
An apparently identical mower appeared as “Generic” model FN001.
Amazon search results also displayed a mower with the same distinctive enclosure, track arrangement and hillside promotional photograph. Its product-information panel identified the brand as “Generic,” model FN001, manufacturer “fn,” manufacturer part number Rc-track-mower-45, and ASIN B0HHY8HH9V.
The seller page identified GuoPeng323 as “Just launched” with no feedback and displayed the business name WuHuLiangYaoShangMaoMenShiBu. The mower was actively available for $1,199.99; placing one in the cart produced a subtotal of $1,229.97. That was $1,569.15 below the $2,799.12 total paid for my mower.
What this does—and does not—establish
The timing, physical similarity, listing imagery, new seller status and price difference make the relationship a reasonable subject for investigation. They do not establish that GuoPeng323 is owned or controlled by FenkeYiHui. Public searches located a YiHui Machine eBay account selling a FenkeYihui 31.5-inch mower, but no shared owner, address, telephone number, email address or marketplace account linking GuoPeng323 to YiHui Machine has yet been identified.
Further change documented September 16, 2026
After criticism was challenged, the mower page was removed—not merely marked discontinued.
In preserved communications, YiHui asked that the criticisms be reconsidered. I declined to withdraw or soften them. The later sequence is now documented: the seller-specific results page, which I had previously observed displaying three machines, showed two; the product link for the mower tied to my order returned Amazon’s “Sorry, we couldn’t find that page” screen; and the order record remained but no longer displayed the product image or an accessible product-details page.
The removal means the former product description, specifications, product-level questions and product-review history can no longer be examined through that listing. The timing is material, but these screenshots alone do not establish whether YiHui, Amazon, or an automated catalog process removed the page—or why.
What disappeared
The documented loss is the mower’s product-listing record and the product-level material attached to it. A separate seller-feedback page remained available. This distinction preserves the evidence accurately while showing the practical result: a shopper following the original mower link can no longer see the former specifications, questions, or product reviews.
The mower manual I was told to follow—but did not receive
Why the missing manual matters
No mower-specific operating manual, assembly guide, blade-installation instructions, remote-control guide, or mower safety manual was found with the delivered machine. The only identified owner’s manual concerned the gasoline engine. The factory later relied on warnings it said appeared in “the manual,” while the revised listing showed a booklet not found with this mower. Those differences affect what instructions and warnings were actually available before the first use.
Mechanical evidence
05
The seller’s own assembly sequence
On August 27 at 1:49 a.m., YiHui answered a request for exact blade-mounting specifications and stated that a video had been sent by email. The original Dropbox video, B.mp4, carries a client-modified time of 1:50 a.m.—one minute later.
Seller demonstration
Multiple separate components
- Fully threaded bolt
- More than one washer-like component
- Distinct raised spacer or bushing beneath the carrier
- Split lock washer above the carrier
- Locking nut
Hardware recovered from this mower
A materially different condition
- One blade position entirely missing its blade and mounting hardware
- Remaining bolt substantially bent
- Blade fragment retained
- One thick spacer/washer observed, rather than the demonstrated sequence
- No installation torque or measurable pivot-resistance standard supplied
What YiHui said about blade movement
“After the blade is installed, it will not remain motionless. Under normal circumstances, it should be in a relatively tight state. When the engine is running, it will be stretched outward due to centrifugal force.”
What was actually found
Before disassembly, I tried to pivot the retained blade fragment by hand and then applied substantially greater force with locking pliers. It did not move. The fragment was clamped so tightly that the bent fastener ultimately had to be cut or ground away for removal. In its condition as found, the blade fragment was immovable—not merely “relatively tight.” That observed condition directly contradicts YiHui’s statement that an installed blade “will not remain motionless.”
The response also omitted the requested tightening torque and any measurable standard for required pivot resistance. Determining why the delivered assembly was immobilized, and whether it conformed to the intended design, remains a technical issue for evidence and expert evaluation.
New evidence · September 19, 2026
05A
A shared platform. A different account of blade assembly.
After reviewing numerous TikTok accounts, I contacted Aisinuo about a mower that appeared to share the platform, hood and cutout logo seen on machines sold under different Amazon brands. The saved conversations provide a new point of comparison: Jason describes blades that remain movable after correct installation, and says the installation video YiHui sent me was not produced or supplied by his company.
The discrepancy that needs an answer
Why was the recovered blade immovable if the comparable factory assembly is designed to pivot?
My recovered blade fragment would not pivot by hand or with locking pliers. Jason’s description of his company’s rotating two-blade configuration expressly says that correct tightening must preserve movement. His statements make the origin and assembly history of the Amazon mower’s cutting system a specific question for Amazon, YiHui and the claimed platform manufacturer.
The initial company contact wrote, “I am a manufacturer from China,” and supplied a catalog it described as its own products. The subsequent Aisinuo-branded conversation was with the representative who identified himself as Jason. Those are the contacts’ representations; the records shown here do not independently verify the factory or trace my particular mower through its supply chain. View the initial manufacturer statement.
The quotations below are transcribed from the preserved messages. Times are those displayed on my phone. The September 18–19 dates follow my conversation record; some individual screenshots display only a time or “Yesterday.” Tap any screenshot to read it at full size.
01 · Same chassis and hood · 10:29 a.m.
Jason acknowledged the platform resemblance.
“The machine shown on our TikTok and the one you found on Amazon have the same basic chassis and hood design, but the cutting configuration are different.”
My question specifically mentioned the matching cutout logo and the Amazon two-blade arm. Jason identified the quoted YG-80 as the flail-style configuration. This supports the shared-design comparison; it does not identify which factory built my individual mower.
02 · Two cutting options · 11:00 a.m.
Both configurations would be assembled at the factory.
“For either configuration, the cutting system would be installed and assembled at the factory before shipment, rather than sending you the machine and expecting you to install the cutting deck yourself.”
Jason offered the flail system and discussed the rotating two-blade arm as a separate option. This describes what his company offered to supply to me, not a verified production record for the mower I had already bought through Amazon.
View the supplied flail underside photograph. It depicts the proposed configuration, not my delivered mower.
03 · Blade movement · 11:37 a.m.
Tightening should secure the assembly while retaining the pivot.
“The retaining hardware is tightened to secure the assembly while still allowing the blade to swing on its pivot rather than being clamped rigidly in one fixed position.”
Jason also said the assembly is installed and checked at the factory before shipment. His description of pivoting blades provides a direct comparison with the immovable fragment and bent fastener recovered from my mower.
04 · Engine off · 12:01 p.m.
He expressly addressed movement with the machine stopped.
“With the machine completely off and the mounting hardware correctly installed and tightened to the factory specification, the blade should not be clamped rigidly in place. It should have the intended freedom of movement at the pivot.”
This clarification matters because it distinguishes the ability to pivot at rest from a claim that centrifugal force alone will release a tightly clamped blade. No numerical torque or pivot-resistance specification appears in this message.
05 · Installation video · 12:25 p.m.
Jason disclaimed the video supplied by YiHui.
“Regarding the blade-installation video you sent. It was not produced or supplied by our company.”
The video was supplied to me by YiHui in response to my assembly questions, as documented in the seller-video record above. Jason’s statement challenges its attribution to his company. It does not identify who filmed it, where it was filmed, or who assembled or modified my mower.
06 · Factory review · 12:49–1:01 p.m.
Jason said he would raise the safety concerns with production.
“I will raise these points with our factory/production team and ask them to compare the equipment you described with the original Aisinuo specifications and assembly.”
He specifically identified blade-mounting hardware, emergency-stop functionality and continued engine operation after remote communication was lost. As of this September 19 update, this is a commitment to seek review, not a completed factory finding or an admission about the source of the defects.
Conversation context: the cutting-system description changed
At 9:04 a.m., the same Aisinuo-branded conversation described the YG-80 as using a flat-blade arrangement rather than individual free-floating flail knives. After an underside photograph was provided and I asked for clarification, the 10:21 a.m. reply confirmed the quoted configuration used the pictured flail system. Later messages discussed both options. This earlier inconsistency is retained so readers can assess the entire exchange rather than treat every description as settled factory documentation.
Read the 9:04 a.m. description · Read the 10:21 a.m. confirmation
What I am asking Amazon and the seller to explain
Who manufactured, assembled and supplied the cutting system that reached me?
I suspect that the platform may have been supplied by one company and the cutting assembly selected, assembled or changed elsewhere before sale under FenkeYiHui. The matching platform, the difference between the described pivoting assembly and the recovered hardware, and Jason’s video disclaimer are the basis for that concern.
That remains an inference. These messages do not establish that Aisinuo manufactured my specific unit, that it supplies either Amazon seller, or that YiHui modified it after leaving Aisinuo. They also do not establish that the physical blades came from a different factory. Purchase and shipment records, the original assembly specification, unit identification and the promised factory review are needed to resolve those questions.
Amazon and YiHui should identify the actual manufacturer and assembler, provide the blade hardware specifications and inspection records, identify the source of the installation video, and explain any differences between the original factory configuration and the mower sold to me.
Communications
06
The questions asked—and what remained unanswered
Still not clearly answered
- Correct tightening torque for the blade bolt and nut
- Complete bushing/spacer dimensions and material
- Whether the blade must pivot upon impact and the required resistance
- Why the demonstrated hardware differed from the hardware recovered
- Factory quality-control records for the missing and bent assembly
Amazon customer service and A-to-Z record
Injury and liability notice
I reported the injury, medical treatment, remote-control failures, inability to shut down the machine, and continuing safety concerns. I requested guidance concerning product-liability insurance and the appropriate claims process.
Dispose of the machine
The representative wrote: “please dispose the defective item you received.” I did not dispose of it, and the mower and recovered components have been preserved.
Refund represented as requested
The same preserved chat states that an A-to-Z refund had been requested from Amazon’s end and that I would receive a full refund. A later communication stated that the refund should arrive within five to seven business days.
Later reversal
The promised refund did not arrive through the initial process. Amazon closed the claim file on May 28, later confirmed on July 12 that the refund request had been denied, and stated that an appeal was submitted.
A-to-Z claim record
Closed, denied, appealed—and eventually refunded
The dated messages now establish the sequence. They also correct an earlier recollection: Amazon's May 28 notice does not say the seller failed to respond. It says Amazon had not received the medical records and bills requested from the claimant. The seller's own May 24 message separately proves that YiHui knew about the claim while it was under review.
Seller knowledge · documented the same day
YiHui acknowledged the claim and asked whether it would be withdrawn.
“We understand that you have filed a claim with Amazon, and it is currently under review.”
YiHui then asked whether I would be willing to withdraw the claim because a replacement remote had been provided. Two minutes later, the seller added that it was not forcing withdrawal and that I had the right to keep my original position.
What these records establish
- The documented May 28 closure reason was missing claimant information—not seller silence.
- YiHui had written knowledge of the Amazon claim no later than May 24.
- The July 12 message confirms a denial and an appeal, but does not state the substantive reason for that denial.
- I later supplied Amazon with medical records and expense documentation. The September 1 refund resolved only the $2,799.12 purchase price; the records reviewed here do not show any offer, decision, or payment addressing bodily injury, medical expenses, lost activity, or other injury-related losses.
- The refund was recorded as “Customer return,” although the mower was preserved rather than returned.
- The May 28 notice records an incident date of May 19; the medical record places the injury on May 8. That discrepancy remains part of the record.
The cost of waiting inside the process
A claim process can consume the time available for other remedies.
Amazon's preserved personal-injury claim terms required a claimant who used A-to-Z to wait for Amazon's decision before filing in court or arbitration, and said claims were usually resolved within 90 days. Those preserved terms do not expressly mention a bank-card dispute. My account is that when I later asked Amazon about disputing the debit-card charge, I was told that route was no longer available after A-to-Z; by then, the time my bank allowed for a transaction dispute had expired. The exact Amazon or bank communication supporting that separate statement still needs to be added to this record.
Additional response record
The dated claim request, closure, denial/appeal, and eventual purchase-price refund are displayed above. No injury-compensation decision is shown in these records.
The May 24 seller message documents awareness of the Amazon claim and a request that I consider withdrawing it.
The earlier product page later became unavailable while a similar mower appeared under a newer listing with a different remote. On September 16, after YiHui asked that criticisms be reconsidered and I declined, the mower’s direct link returned a missing-page screen rather than a discontinued listing. The sequence is documented without assigning an unproven motive.
Court record
07
Pending in Cowlitz County Superior Court
FiledSeptember 1, 2026
Defendants servedSeptember 4, 2026
Discovery mailedSeptember 8, 2026
The complaint names Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC. Discovery requests seek information concerning sales, customer complaints, blade hardware, remote-control failures, loss-of-signal behavior, injuries, listing and identifier changes, manuals, warnings, and internal communications.
Publication boundary
This working site does not decide liability. It organizes the owner’s account and supporting records while the legal process is pending. Court filings and future developments will be added with dates and clear labels.
The next chapter
September 23, 2026
08
My Next Machine: Getting to Know the People Behind It
September 26 update
My confidence in the proposed AIWEIYA purchase has changed. Read about the invoice mismatch and unanswered questions before reading this earlier chapter.
My search for a new mower has come down to two companies in China. This time, I am pursuing a purchase directly from the factory, with delivery to my home in Washington, rather than buying through Amazon.
