Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Yarusso (P), was riding his off-road motorcycle at a dirt motocross track. P was wearing all the right safety equipment in addition to a helmet. P hit a mogul and was catapulted over the handlebars. P sustained a burst fracture of the C5 vertebral body and was rendered a quadriplegic. P sued D, the manufacturer of the Bell Moto 5 helmet. P alleged that the injuries were sustained as a proximate result of a defect in the helmet's design. The helmet was designed for off-road use. It complies with federal standards and is certified by a leading worldwide helmet research and testing laboratory. The inner liner is considered the most important safety feature of the helmet. The expanded polystyrene material of which this liner is primarily constructed is designed to compress upon contact with a solid object. P alleged negligence in the design and construction of the helmet, breach of express warranties and breach of an implied warranty of merchantability. The helmet's owner's manual detailed a Five Year Limited Warranty for repair or replacement expressly in lieu of all other warranties, and limited any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose to the same duration as the express warranty. “D was not to be liable for any incidental or consequential damages. The manual also stated: The primary function of a helmet is to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head. However, it is important to recognize that the wearing of a helmet is not an assurance of absolute protection. NO HELMET CAN PROTECT THE WEARER AGAINST ALL FORESEEABLE IMPACTS. It was designed to absorb the force of a blow first by spreading it over as wide an area of the outer shell as possible, and second by the crushing of the non-resilient inner liner. Damage to the helmet after an impact was not a sign of any defect in the helmet design or construction. It is exactly what the helmet is designed to do. To obtain the maximum protection, it must fit firmly on the head, and the chin strap must be securely fastened.” P claimed he purchased the helmet based on the specific assertions that 'the primary function of a helmet is to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head.' P alleges the helmet was not merchantable because it was sold as an off-road helmet but was designed to function for 'on-road' use. Because the helmet met DOT street helmet standards, Yarusso claimed that it had a very stiff liner that would effectively function for on-road use but would not protect a rider against foreseeable off-road falls, where the impact surface could conceivably be softer. The issue boiled down to whether the helmet liner properly crushed, as designed, at the time Yarusso's head impacted the ground after his fall. P offered expert testimony that the helmet sustained the majority of the fall's impact at its crown where the liner was too dense to crush sufficiently, thereby transmitting excessive force to P's neck, resulting in his paralysis. The trial court granted judgment as a matter of law on P's breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose claim but denied D's motion on the remaining counts. The jury ultimately found that D was not negligent, but had breached an express or implied warranty, which proximately caused P's enhanced injury. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co