## Facts

- Edwin W. Hickox, a professional baseball umpire, was struck in the face by a foul-tipped pitch during a game while wearing a Wilson umpire’s mask.
- Hickox suffered a serious concussion and permanent hearing loss in his left ear.
- The mask used a traditional wire-frame design with a new throat guard that angled forward rather than extending straight down.
- The plaintiffs alleged the forward-angled throat guard could trap a foul ball momentarily, concentrating impact forces on the wearer’s face.
- The plaintiffs presented evidence that a Wilson representative provided Hickox the mask and represented it as a new, improved, safer design.
- The plaintiffs’ evidence indicated Wilson had not performed impact testing comparable to testing used for other mask designs, and expert testimony stated appropriate testing would have revealed increased energy transfer associated with the throat-guard configuration.
- The plaintiffs introduced evidence of alternative designs available at the time, including hockey-style masks and traditional masks with straight-down throat guards, and testimony that Hickox likely would not have been injured with those alternatives.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the plaintiffs’ expert testimony on design defect and the adequacy of Wilson’s testing.
2. Whether Wilson was entitled to an assumption-of-risk jury instruction based on Hickox’s experience and awareness of general risks from foul balls.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the mask was defectively designed under the consumer-expectation test, including that inadequate testing allowed an unreasonably dangerous product to reach users.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the plaintiffs’ expert testimony; asserted methodological weaknesses went to weight, not admissibility.
- The court held the trial court properly refused an assumption-of-risk instruction because the evidence did not show Hickox knew of the specific alleged defect in the mask’s design.
- The court held sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the mask failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect and that reasonable testing could have revealed the dangerous design feature.

## Legal Principles

- A design defect under the consumer-expectation test may be shown by proof that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.
- Evidence of feasible, safer alternative designs may support a finding that a product did not meet ordinary safety expectations.
- Expert testimony is admissible where grounded in sufficient data and reliable methods; disputes about realism or completeness of testing generally affect credibility and weight for the jury, not admissibility.
- Assumption of risk in a products case requires actual knowledge of the specific defect or danger and voluntary exposure to that known risk; general awareness of occupational hazards is insufficient.
- A manufacturer’s failure to conduct reasonable testing of a new design may support strict liability where the lack of testing permits an unreasonably dangerous design to reach consumers.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict finding Wilson liable for a defectively designed umpire’s mask, ruling that the plaintiffs’ expert evidence was properly admitted, assumption of risk was not supported without proof of knowledge of the specific defect, and the record was sufficient for the jury to conclude the mask did not meet ordinary safety expectations and that reasonable testing could have revealed the danger.


Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox, 59 A.3d 1267 (D.C. 2013)