Wilson Sporting Goods v. Hickox

59 A.3d 1267 (D.C. 2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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.