Everett v. Bucky Warren, Inc.

William Everett Jr. (plaintiff) was approximately 19 years old when he was seriously injured while playing hockey for New Preparatory School (New Prep) (defendant) at a game in Rhode Island. Everett was wearing a helmet, but he was struck near the ear by a puck that penetrated a gap formed where the helmet’s three sections came together. J.E. Pender (Pender) (defendant) manufactured the helmet (Pender helmet). Other helmet manufacturers sold helmets with a single piece, which did not have any gaps. One-piece helmets were more expensive than the Pender helmet. New Prep, via its experienced coach, ordered the Pender helmet from retailer Bucky Warren, Inc. (Bucky). The coach knew or should have known that other manufacturers sold one-piece helmets. Everett sued Pender, alleging that the helmet was defectively designed. Everett further claimed that Pender, New Prep, and Bucky were negligent in supplying the Pender helmet and that Pender and Bucky were liable on a strict-liability theory. Everett testified that he did not know the Pender helmet was unsafe and that he believed the Pender helmet would protect him. The jury concluded that (1) Pender, New Prep, and Bucky were negligent; (2) the Pender helmet was not in a reasonably safe condition when Pender and Bucky supplied it, and the unsafe condition caused Everett’s injury; and (3) Everett was not contributorily negligent and did not assume the risk of injury. However, the trial judge entered judgments notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Pender, New Prep, and Bucky with respect to negligence on the ground that Everett assumed the risk of injury. The trial judge did not disturb the strict-liability verdict against Pender and Bucky. All parties appealed.