Facts
- William Everett, Jr., a 19-year-old student and hockey player for New Preparatory School, wore a protective hockey helmet supplied through the school.
- During play, Everett was struck in the head by a puck and suffered serious injury.
- The helmet was a three-piece design: separate plastic sections for the back, front (forehead ring), and top, each lined with shock foam.
- The top section was loosely connected to the side sections by leather strips; the side sections were connected by an adjustable elastic strap.
- The construction created gaps with no plastic coverage: roughly 1/2 to 3/4 inch between the top and side pieces, and up to 3/4 inch between the side pieces depending on fit and strap tension.
- One-piece hockey helmets without such gaps were available at the time.
- Everett claimed the puck entered a gap and struck an unprotected area of his head.
- Everett sued the helmet’s manufacturer/designer, the retailer/distributor (Bucky Warren, Inc.), and the school (New Prep) under negligence and strict products liability theories.
Issues
- Whether the evidence permitted a finding that the helmet’s gap-containing design was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and/or negligently designed for its intended use in hockey.
- Whether the evidence permitted liability against the retailer and the school, as non-manufacturer suppliers, under negligence and strict liability theories.
- Whether contributory negligence or assumption of risk barred recovery as a matter of law, or were properly submitted to the jury.
- Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of causation linking the design defect (gaps) to the injury.
Decision
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the plaintiff’s verdicts.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find the helmet was not reasonably safe for its intended use because the gaps created a foreseeable, avoidable risk of head injury.
- The court held the jury could find causation where evidence supported that the puck entered through a gap that would not exist in a one-piece design.
- The court held the retailer and the school could be found liable as suppliers who placed the helmet into use for hockey.
- The court held contributory negligence and assumption of risk did not bar recovery as a matter of law on this record and were properly treated as jury questions.
Legal Principles
- A product may be found defectively designed when its design creates a foreseeable and avoidable danger in ordinary, intended use, particularly where safer feasible alternatives exist.
- Evidence that a safer alternative design was available in the marketplace can support a finding that a product was not reasonably safe.
- Entities in the chain of distribution, including non-manufacturer suppliers, may be liable for injuries caused by a defective product placed into use.
- The inherent risks of a sport do not immunize suppliers where injury is tied to an avoidable risk created by a defective safety device.
- Assumption of risk in products cases generally requires proof that the plaintiff knew of the specific defect and voluntarily encountered that defect; absent conclusive proof, the defense is for the jury.
Conclusion
The court sustained jury findings that a hockey helmet’s gap-containing design could be unreasonably dangerous and a proximate cause of injury, that both commercial and institutional suppliers could be liable for placing such equipment into use, and that contributory negligence and assumption of risk were not established as complete defenses as a matter of law.