WILSON SPORTING GOODS V. HICKOX
59 A.3d 1267 (D.C. 2013)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Wilson (D) appealed a judgment for Hickox (P) on P's claims for
strict liability for a defective product, design defect, negligent design, design defect due
to failure to warn, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
FACTS: A D representative gave P an umpire's mask with what the representative claimed
was a new, safer design. P wore the mask while working behind home plate as an umpire. A
foul-tipped ball struck the mask. P got a concussion and damaged a joint between the bones
in P's inner ear. P suffered permanent hearing loss of mild to moderate severity. The mask
had a newly designed throat guard that angled forward instead of extending straight down.
According to P, the throat guard should have had a center wire and should have extended
straight down with no forward angle. When the ball hit the throat guard, the mask did not
deflect the ball but rather temporarily trapped the ball, concentrating the ball's energy at
the point of impact. The mask was driven into P's jaw with great force. If P had been
wearing either a hockey-style mask or a traditional mask with a throat guard that extended
straight down, he probably would not have suffered the injury. D did not test the type of
mask worn by P to determine the forces that would be transferred to the wearer's head upon
impact. Such testing would have shown the mask to be defective. Before the incident, P had
used the mask many times without injury. D contends the ball hit the mask above the throat
guard, not on it, and so the same injury would have occurred even if the mask had not had a
throat guard at all. At the time of the incident, there were no design or testing standards
for wire baseball masks. Other companies sold similar masks, and those masks were not
associated with injuries like P's. The mask had been field-tested for over five years, and
had been lab-tested before the incident. Before the incident, P had used the mask many times
without injury. After the incident, P suffered additional head injuries while umpiring, even
though he was then wearing the hockey-style mask that he claimed to be a safer, alternative
design. P was an experienced umpire who knew the risk of injury and that no face mask can
guarantee safety. The judge submitted strict liability for a defective product, design
defect, negligent design, design defect due to failure to warn, and breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose to the jury. P got $750,000 and his wife got
$25,000. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment