## Facts

- Robert J. Phillips wore Century LLC’s “P2” martial-arts headgear with a clear plastic face shield while “light” sparring at a martial arts studio in October 2010.
- During sparring, his partner threw a light punch; Phillips stepped into the punch, which struck the front of the face shield.
- The shield hit the bridge of Phillips’s nose and cut it; he cleaned the blood and continued sparring.
- The next day, Phillips complained of neck, mid-back, and left-shoulder pain and went to a chiropractor.
- The chiropractor adjusted Phillips’s cervical spine (including multiple vertebrae) and acknowledged there can be a risk that neck manipulation may cause carotid artery dissection, though he believed his adjustments were not forceful enough to cause harm.
- Early the following morning, Phillips suffered a stroke caused by a carotid artery dissection, resulting in severe brain damage and a need for continuous care.
- Phillips and his wife sued Century for negligence, defective design, and failure to warn, alleging the headgear’s design (including an opening near the face shield) could allow a glove to catch and increase rotational forces on the head and neck, causing dissection.
- Century’s experts disputed causation and attributed the injury to chiropractic manipulation or a spontaneous dissection (or some other event), rather than the headgear or the sparring contact.
- At trial, a Century executive testified Century had sold about 105,000 units of the same headgear model and that Phillips’s claim was “the only claim of injury ever made,” explaining he had reviewed all insurance claims against the company and searched company files for similar incidents.
- The jury found Century negligent in designing the headgear but found that negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Phillips’s injury; judgment was entered for Century.
- Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment and from a post-judgment order denying their motion to strike and/or tax costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony that Century had received no prior similar injury claims involving the P2 headgear.
2. Whether defense counsel’s opening statement and closing argument constituted prejudicial attorney misconduct requiring reversal.
3. Whether a special verdict finding negligent design but no substantial-factor causation was legally inconsistent.
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike and/or tax costs awarded to Century as the prevailing party.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Century and affirmed the post-judgment order denying the motion to strike and/or tax costs.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the executive’s “no prior similar claims” testimony because a sufficient foundation supported the witness’s knowledge and review of claims, and the evidence had probative value on notice and the claimed dangerous condition.
- The court rejected the attorney-misconduct arguments, concluding the challenged remarks did not warrant reversal under the record and the applicable prejudice standard.
- The special verdict was not inconsistent: the jury could find Century acted negligently in design yet also find plaintiffs failed to prove that negligence was a substantial factor in causing the carotid dissection and stroke.
- The costs ruling was affirmed because Century was the prevailing party and the trial court acted within its discretion in denying relief from the cost award.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion; the reviewing court will not reweigh admissibility when the trial court’s ruling is within reason.
- Evidence that a manufacturer received no prior similar claims may be admissible, with an adequate foundation, to show lack of notice and to support an inference that the product condition at issue was not dangerous in the manner claimed; admissibility remains subject to Evidence Code section 352 balancing.
- In negligence and product cases, breach (negligent design) and causation are separate elements; a plaintiff must prove the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
- Claims of attorney misconduct generally require a showing of improper argument and prejudice; curative instructions and the strength of the evidence on disputed elements bear on whether reversal is required.
- A prevailing party is generally entitled to recover allowable costs; rulings on motions to strike or tax costs are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

In this unpublished California decision, the Court of Appeal upheld a defense judgment and related cost award after a jury found Century negligently designed martial-arts headgear but did not cause Robert Phillips’s carotid dissection and stroke. The court held the trial judge acted within discretion by admitting testimony, supported by a detailed foundation, that Century had sold roughly 105,000 units of the same model without prior similar injury claims, rejected allegations of prejudicial attorney misconduct, and ruled the negligence-without-causation special verdict was legally permissible.


Phillips v. Century LLC, 2017 WL 773545 (2017)