{"id":1428,"date":"2013-04-14T14:48:08","date_gmt":"2013-04-14T19:48:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/?p=1428"},"modified":"2013-04-14T19:20:38","modified_gmt":"2013-04-15T00:20:38","slug":"riddell-helmets-hit-with-3-1-million-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/?p=1428","title":{"rendered":"Riddell Helmets Hit with $3.1 Million Verdict"},"content":{"rendered":"

A jury\u2019s verdict in Colorado may end up sending shockwaves throughout the sports-manufacturing industry, and the \u201cbooming business of concussions<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Riddell Helmets was found liable on a failure to warn claim asserted by the family of Rhett Ridolfi, according to The New York Times<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The facts are sketchy and the legal theories are a bit blurred; without the benefit of reviewing the pleadings, this is what can be gleaned from various news accounts.<\/p>\n

In 2008, Rhett Ridolfi was participating in a \u201cMachine Gun Drill\u201d<\/a> where he sustained a concussion. After complaining about headaches, his coaches allegedly ignored Ridolfi\u2019s plea for help and allowed him to return to practice later that afternoon.<\/p>\n

Ridolfi subsequently collapsed and required emergency surgery<\/a> to reduce swelling and bleeding of the brain.<\/p>\n

Ridolfi\u2019s medical expenses were more than $3.2 million, and he now walks with a brace, is limited in body function and has impulse and behavioral problems, according to Trinidad News<\/a>.<\/p>\n

After a\u00a0nine-and-a-half day<\/a>\u00a0trial, the jury awarded $11.5 million in damages, which Riddell is responsible for $3.1 million.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s unclear if the other defendants \u2013 Trinidad High School and coaches \u2013 are on the hook for the remaining portion of damages.<\/p>\n

Ridolfi\u2019s attorney claimed that the re-furbished helmet was defective — pointing to the padding on the front of the helmet –, and also that Riddell failed to inform Ridolfi about the risk of concussion.<\/p>\n

Riddell recently defeated a similar product defect case<\/a>, so it was probably confident it could do the same here.<\/p>\n

The jury, indeed, rejected the manufacturing\/design-defect claim, but it found the failure to warn claim compelling \u2013 it\u2019s unclear if a negligence or strict liability theory, or both, were asserted.<\/p>\n

In order to succeed on a failure to warn claim, a plaintiff has to convince the jury, among other things, that the product was unreasonably dangerous because of (1) a lack of a warning or (2) the warning was deficient.<\/p>\n

The determinative issue is whether \u201cthe information accompanying the product effectively communicates to the consumer or user the dangers that inhere in the product during normal use and the dangerous consequences that can or will result from misuse or abnormal use of the product.\u201d See, American Law of Products Liability.<\/p>\n

Although Riddell has had a warning label<\/a> on its helmets since 2002, this warning apparently was insufficient.<\/p>\n

The jury found that Riddell failed to warn Ridolfi about the risk of concussion.<\/p>\n

This is a reasonable conclusion, since the majority of the public likely believes that a helmet can prevent concussions. Without an explicit warning — like the one currently used by Riddell — consumers are likely led to believe that the helmet has the ability to prevent or reduce concussions.<\/p>\n

At the time of the accident, Riddell did not have its new warning label on the helmet, which explicitly states:<\/p>\n

\u201cContact in football may result in CONCUSSION-BRAIN INJURY<\/a> which no helmet can prevent\u2026Do not return to a game or practice until all symptoms are gone.\u201d<\/p>\n

Darren Heitner<\/a> has analyzed the impact of this new warning label, and whether it can be used to prove fault on behalf of the defendant. As a general rule, subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove a need for a better warning. See Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.<\/p>\n

In any event, the jury found that Riddell failed to adequately warn Ridolfi that the helmet couldn\u2019t prevent concussion-brain injury, and perhaps that a player should not return to a game or practice until he is asymptomatic.<\/p>\n

Although this verdict appears to be an anomaly, it could indicate that juries are placing more responsibility on manufacturers to explicitly warn about the limitations of helmets. In addition, judges may be more willing to allow a jury to decide whether a warning would be heeded, as opposed to deciding the case summarily on the papers.<\/p>\n

The verdict will be appealed, and you can guarantee a handful of helmet manufacturers and probably the Chamber of Commerce will file amicus briefs in support of overturning the verdict.<\/p>\n

Riddell\u2019s spokesman told The New York Times, \u201cWe are confident that the jury would have reached a different conclusion had the Court not erroneously excluded the testimony of our warnings expert.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe intend to appeal this verdict, and we remain steadfast in our belief that Riddell designs and manufactures the most protective football headgear for the athlete.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although Riddell has faired pretty well in cases involving helmet defects and failure to warn claims, (But see, Korey Stringer \u2013 failure to warn claim relating to heat strokes<\/a>.) this case could set a costly precedent for helmet manufacturers and snake-oil peddlers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

According to The New York Times, a similar case is set for trial in Los Angeles. If Riddell is blindsided by another verdict, it could spell trouble for Riddell in the NFL Concussion Litigation and beyond.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A jury\u2019s verdict in Colorado may end up sending shockwaves throughout the sports-manufacturing industry, and the \u201cbooming business of concussions.\u201d Riddell Helmets was found liable on a failure to warn claim asserted by the family of Rhett Ridolfi, according to The New York Times. The facts are sketchy and the legal theories are a bit […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[1],"tags":[245,29,247,249,246,250,126,4,248,251,44],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1428"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1430,"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428\/revisions\/1430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}