Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 25
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Edwin Hickox, an MLB umpire, was injured wearing a Wilson mask; he and his wife sued Wilson for products liability.
- The mask had a new forward-angled throat guard design; plaintiffs claimed defect caused energy concentration at impact.
- Hickox was injured by a foul ball during a game; he suffered concussion and permanent hearing loss.
- Wilson argued the expert testimony lacked foundation, no assumption-of-risk instruction was warranted, and verdicts were not supported by evidence.
- Jury found in favor of Hickoxes on all claims; trial court's design-defect verdict under consumer-expectation theory was pivotal.
- Appellate court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Paul’s expert testimony was admissible | Dr. Paul had adequate data and reasoning | Test lacked adequate data and explanation | Admissible; adequate basis and reasoning found |
| Whether an assumption-of-risk defense instruction was warranted | N/A | There was sufficient evidence of risk awareness | Not warranted; no specific defect-risk awareness shown by Hickox |
| Whether the design defect verdict under consumer-expectation theory was supported | Mask failed ordinary consumer expectations and alternative designs exist | Design satisfied safety expectations and tests; no defect under standard | Supported under consumer-expectation test; reasonable juror could find defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Sponaugle v. Pre-Term, Inc., 411 A.2d 366 (D.C.1980) (expert opinion must be based on fact or adequate data)
- Jones v. United States, 990 A.2d 970 (D.C.2010) (abuses of discretion review of admissibility)
- Orth v. Emerson Elec. Co., White-Rodgers Div., 980 F.2d 632 (10th Cir.1992) (admission of expert testimony upheld under Daubert-like standards)
- Mathes v. Sher Express, L.L.C., 200 S.W.3d 97 (Mo.Ct.App.2006) (admission of expert testimony based on engineering background and evidence reviewed)
- Benn v. United States, 978 A.2d 1257 (D.C.2009) (weight of expert testimony; cross-examination adequate)