Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox

DC: Court of Appeals
59 A. 3d 1267 (2013)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the consumer-expectation test, a product's design is defective if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Evidence of safer, commercially available alternatives and a manufacturer's own representations about a product's safety can be used to establish what an ordinary consumer's expectations are.

Facts:

In 2005, a representative from Wilson Sporting Goods Company gave Major League Baseball umpire Edwin Hickox an umpire's mask, claiming it featured a new, safer design.
The mask had a newly designed throat guard that angled forward, unlike traditional masks where it extended straight down.
Several months later, while umpiring a game, a foul-tipped baseball struck the mask Hickox was wearing.
The impact caused Hickox to suffer a concussion and permanent hearing loss due to a damaged inner ear joint.
Hickox's claim was that the forward-angled throat guard trapped the ball instead of deflecting it, which concentrated the force and drove the mask into his jaw.
Safer alternative masks, such as hockey-style masks or traditional masks with straight throat guards, were commercially available at the time of the incident.
Wilson did not perform tests on this type of mask to determine the forces that would be transferred to a wearer's head upon impact.
The Wilson representative had told Hickox that the mask was designed to disperse the force of impact and protect against concussions.

Procedural Posture:

Edwin Hickox and his wife sued Wilson Sporting Goods Company in the trial court, asserting products-liability claims.
The case proceeded to a jury trial.
The jury found in favor of the Hickoxes on all claims and awarded them monetary damages.
Wilson Sporting Goods Company, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the intermediate appellate court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under the consumer-expectation test for a design defect claim, is the evidence sufficient to support a jury's verdict when the plaintiff provides evidence of safer alternative designs, the manufacturer's representations of safety, and expert testimony explaining how the product's design flaw caused the injury?

Opinions:

Majority - McLeese, Associate Judge

Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the mask had a design defect under the consumer-expectation test. A product is defective if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. Here, a reasonable juror could find that the test was met based on several pieces of evidence. First, the existence of safer, commercially available alternative masks (like hockey-style masks) helps establish the level of safety an ordinary user would expect. Second, the statements by Wilson's representative that the mask was safer and would disperse energy created a reasonable consumer expectation of safety. Third, expert testimony explained that the design defect—the forward-angled throat guard—caused the mask to trap the ball and concentrate energy, leading directly to the injury. The court also held that the trial court did not err by declining to give an assumption-of-risk instruction, because Wilson failed to show Hickox knew of the specific defect and its associated danger, not just the general risks of umpiring. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the plaintiff's expert testimony, reasoning that any alleged deficiencies in the expert's methodology, such as not conducting his own tests, went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the application of the consumer-expectation test for design defects in this jurisdiction, demonstrating that plaintiffs can establish a prima facie case without relying on the more complex risk-utility analysis. It affirms that evidence such as manufacturer advertising, the availability of safer alternatives, and expert explanation of the failure mechanism are highly persuasive in defining what an 'ordinary consumer' should expect. The case also reinforces the high bar for the assumption-of-risk defense in product liability, requiring the defendant to prove the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the specific defect at issue, not merely a general awareness of risk associated with an activity. This precedent provides a clear roadmap for litigating design defect claims involving everyday consumer products where safety expectations are intuitive.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature