Products Liability
Football Helmet Failure to Warn $1,000,000
Injuries alleged: Incomplete Quadriplegia
Court: Withheld
Amount of settlement: Structured settlement with present value exceeding One Million Dollars.
Case Summary:
The plaintiff, a 16-year-old sophomore, was paralyzed while running back a kickoff when his helmeted head struck that of another player. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he intentionally lowered his head when he saw two players hurtling toward him helmet-first because of the plaintiff's belief and expectation that his helmet was adequate to absorb the energy from that impact, and thereby protect him against serious injury.
A biomechanical engineer was prepared to testify that the energy created by the helmet-to-helmet impact was neither entirely dissipated by the helmet's hard outer shell, nor was it entirely absorbed by the helmet's interior padding; and further, that excess energy not managed by the helmet was transferred downward from the top of the helmet, through the player's head, and down into the more fragile cervical vertebrae in the neck, where the unmanaged energy from the blow was sufficient to cause a fracture dislocation at C5-6, resulting instantaneously in quadriplegia.
A second expert utilized by the plaintiff was an engineer with more than twenty years experience in football helmet design and construction. This expert testified by videotape deposition that he had been called to the defendant's corporate headquarters six years before the plaintiff's injury, at which time he explained to the defendant's principals that no football helmet presently manufactured was capable of safely and effectively managing the energies created by the foreseeable game impacts to helmets; that significant numbers of players were being paralyzed annually by impacts to the top of their helmets; that players had developed a false sense of security and a misguided belief that their helmets protected them against serious injury; and that the players needed to be in-formed of these facts and taught to avoid helmet-first contact whenever possible.
This expert further testified that every football helmet, in his opinion, needed to contain a conspicuous warning label which:
1. apprised its wearer that the helmet did not protect him from all serious in-juries;
2. instructed the player to avoid
helmet- first contact whenever possible; and
3. warned him that helmet-first contact could result in serious
injury, including
paralysis or death.
This expert testified that, accordingly, the manufacturer's failure to apprise the genera! public, including coaches and players, of these facts, constituted a negligent failure to warn of the known limited protective capabilities of the helmet; and a breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, which were imposed by law upon the manufacturer.
The plaintiff, who was initially completely paralyzed below the neck has, through extensive physical therapy, regained the use of his upper body, arms and thumbs. His fingers and lower extremities remain paralyzed. He is mobile via a wheelchair and drives a specially equipped van.