When will Riddell just stop making helmets? Why would anyone new even try?

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I understand why people aren't happy with this outcome, because people want to see individuals take responsibility for their actions and their choices. However, I can understand how this case came up and how it was decided by the jury.

On your second part. If there was a defect in the manufacture of the actual shoe, there could be a potential claim in there. Would be hard to make a claim of a defect in labeling.

Exactly... which is why I question the jury's decision to hold Riddell partly liable.

"While disappointed in the jury's decision not to fully exonerate Riddell, we are pleased the jury determined that Riddell's helmet was not defective in any way.''

 

[Nerd-Vol]

:ermm:

So you think this is a legitimate case of mislabeling? How should the helmet have been labeled?

"WARNING: If you smash your head into things, there is a risk of concussion and neck injury, even if wearing a helmet."

You think they are 33% at fault for the damages? I didn't read what state this was tried in, or if it's a proportionate liability state, but I'm assuming that's how they came up with 33% of the damages.

It appears the plaintiff's did not succeed on their defect claim, but did on their negligence claim.

The jury in Las Animas County found that Riddell was negligent in failing to warn people wearing its helmets about concussion dangers. The jury assessed 27 percent of the fault for Rhett Ridolfi's injuries, making the company responsible for paying $3.1 million of the damages.

 

[Thrasher865]

does that fit the definition of negligence? That is akin to a cutlery manufacturer not warning people of the risk of consuming undercooked meat, IMO. Not warning someone, not of the danger of using the product itself, but the danger in participating in an activity in which the product is used. Seems ridiculous.

 

[Nerd-Vol]

does that fit the definition of negligence? That is akin to a cutlery manufacturer not warning people of the risk of consuming undercooked meat, IMO. Not warning someone, not of the danger of using the product itself, but the danger in participating in an activity in which the product is used. Seems ridiculous.

If Riddell had a duty to warn about the proper use of the helmet or whatever caused the injury, then they would have been negligent.

 

[Thrasher865]

If Riddell had a duty to warn about the proper use of the helmet or whatever caused the injury, then they would have been negligent.

That goes back to exactly what I said in this post:

I don't know as much about this as you, I'm sure, but wouldn't that only be in a case where the label is warning about misuse of a product? Like if an ATV has a label saying "do not use on grades steeper than X%?"

There was no misuse of the product here, just a freak accident in which the product performed as designed, but it wasn't enough.

It would appear there was no defect in the helmet, and there was no improper use of the helmet that lead to the injury. It was just a case of a hit that was too hard for the helmet to cushion.

So do they need to put labels on there that say: "WARNING: Do not use helmet in collisions resulting in more than XX.XX kN of force to the skull?" Would that have prevented this injury?

 

[Vol_Maul]

Y! SPORTS

This is like suing a car manufacturer for the seat belt not saving a person's life every time.