Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
59 A.3d 1267 (2013)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Edwin Hickox (plaintiff) was a baseball umpire. A representative of Wilson Sporting Goods Company (Wilson) (defendant) gave Hickox a protective mask to wear during games. The representative stated the mask was a new and safer design. Hickox was wearing the mask during a game when a foul ball hit the mask and caused Hickox serious injury. The design of the throat guard of the mask was such that the force of the ball was concentrated in one place upon impact, rather than being dispersed throughout the mask. This concentrated force was transferred to Hickox’s head causing Hickox’s injury. Wilson had not tested the mask to determine whether the force would be concentrated in this manner. There were other masks available at the time that would not have caused Hickox’s injury. Hickox brought a products liability suit against Wilson, claiming the mask was defectively designed. The jury found in favor of Hickox. Wilson filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McLeese, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
