Wilson Sporting Goods Co. V. Hickox Case Study
Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox, 59 A.3d 1267
(District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2013)
Facts: Edwin Hickox attended a Major League Baseball retreat for umpires, where he received an umpire’s mask from a Wilson Sporting Goods Company representative. The Wilson representative claimed the mask had a new, safer design. Mr. Hickox wore the mask months later while working as an umpire for a game in Washington, D.C. During the game, the mask was struck by a foul-tipped ball. Mr. Hickox suffered a concussion and a damaged inner ear joint from the impact. The injuries caused Mr. Hickow to have permanent hearing damage with mild to moderate severity. The Hickoxes claimed the new throat guard design on Wilson’s mask was the contributing factor in Mr. Hickox’s jaw receiving most of the ball’s concentrated energy. …show more content…
Wilson claims the injury would have occurred even if the mask had no throat guard at all. Wilson stated the mask performed its design by deflecting the ball away from Mr. Hickox’s face. The Hickoxes filed a suit against Wilson for product liability based on a defective design. The suit was filed in a District of Columbia court. The jury ruled in favor of the Hickoxes, awarding Mr. Hickox $750,000 and Mrs. Hickox $25,000. Wilson filed an appeal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s ruling.
Issue: Was there enough evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that Wilson’s throat guard design was responsible for Mr. Hickox’s injuries?
Decision: Yes. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s verdict.
Reason: Wilson agreed with the jury being instructed to use the consumer-expectation test to determine if the evidence was sufficient. The consumer-expectation test contends that if a product is used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner and it fails
(District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2013)
Facts: Edwin Hickox attended a Major League Baseball retreat for umpires, where he received an umpire’s mask from a Wilson Sporting Goods Company representative. The Wilson representative claimed the mask had a new, safer design. Mr. Hickox wore the mask months later while working as an umpire for a game in Washington, D.C. During the game, the mask was struck by a foul-tipped ball. Mr. Hickox suffered a concussion and a damaged inner ear joint from the impact. The injuries caused Mr. Hickow to have permanent hearing damage with mild to moderate severity. The Hickoxes claimed the new throat guard design on Wilson’s mask was the contributing factor in Mr. Hickox’s jaw receiving most of the ball’s concentrated energy. …show more content…
Wilson claims the injury would have occurred even if the mask had no throat guard at all. Wilson stated the mask performed its design by deflecting the ball away from Mr. Hickox’s face. The Hickoxes filed a suit against Wilson for product liability based on a defective design. The suit was filed in a District of Columbia court. The jury ruled in favor of the Hickoxes, awarding Mr. Hickox $750,000 and Mrs. Hickox $25,000. Wilson filed an appeal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s ruling.
Issue: Was there enough evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that Wilson’s throat guard design was responsible for Mr. Hickox’s injuries?
Decision: Yes. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s verdict.
Reason: Wilson agreed with the jury being instructed to use the consumer-expectation test to determine if the evidence was sufficient. The consumer-expectation test contends that if a product is used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner and it fails