## Facts

- Brian J. Yarusso suffered a catastrophic neck injury and quadriplegia after being thrown from his off-road motorcycle at a Delaware motocross track and landing on his head.
- Yarusso wore a Bell Moto-5 full-face motocross helmet marketed for off-road use; the helmet complied with DOT standards and was Snell certified.
- The helmet’s manual stated the helmet’s function was to reduce harmful effects of a blow by spreading impact over the shell and by crushing the non-resilient inner liner, while warning that no helmet provides absolute protection.
- The manual also included an express limited warranty and language attempting to limit implied warranties and exclude incidental or consequential damages.
- Yarusso alleged the helmet was marketed for off-road use but was designed to meet on-road standards, making its liner too stiff for foreseeable off-road impacts and inconsistent with performance representations.
- In Superior Court, Yarusso pursued negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
- The jury found no negligence but found breach of express warranties or, alternatively, implied warranties, and awarded damages.
- Bell sought judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing the plaintiff’s experts were unqualified and their opinions insufficient for warranty claims, that the verdict was inconsistent, and that a mistrial was required after a juror was discharged for undisclosed helmet-related knowledge; the trial court denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Yarusso’s expert testimony and allowing the warranty claims to go to the jury based on that evidence.
2. Whether a verdict finding no negligence but finding breach of express and/or implied warranties is legally inconsistent and requires judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial after discharging a juror for undisclosed prior knowledge relating to motorcycle helmets.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Yarusso.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying and admitting the plaintiff’s expert testimony and in submitting breach-of-warranty issues to the jury.
- The court held the jury’s findings (no negligence, but breach of warranty) were not legally inconsistent.
- The court held the trial court did not err by denying a mistrial after removing the juror for cause where there was no showing of prejudice to the remaining jurors.

## Legal Principles

- Trial-court rulings on expert qualification and admissibility are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires a showing that the ruling exceeded permissible bounds.
- Warranty liability may be supported by evidence that product performance did not conform to express representations or to ordinary expectations for the product as marketed, even if negligence is not proven.
- A finding of no negligence does not, by itself, preclude a finding of breach of express or implied warranty; the theories address different elements (conduct versus conformity to warranted qualities).
- Decisions addressing juror discharge and mistrial are reviewed for abuse of discretion; removal of a juror can be an adequate remedy absent evidence that extraneous information reached or prejudiced the remaining jury.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Supreme Court upheld a plaintiff’s recovery on express and implied warranty theories arising from an off-road motorcycle helmet, concluding that the expert evidence and product representations supported submission of the warranty claims to the jury, that the no-negligence/breach-of-warranty verdict was consistent, and that the trial court’s handling of juror discharge did not require a mistrial.


Bell Sports, Inc. v. Yarusso, 759 A.2d 582 (Del. 2000)