Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.
ARTICLE ID 31084
- PRODUCTS LIABILITY - ALLEGED DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF ICE HOCKEY FACE MASK RESULTS IN FRACTURE OF FIFTH CERVICAL VERTEBRAE - SPINAL FUSION.
Norfolk
The plaintiff, age 16 at the time of the subject incident,
brought suit against the defendant manufacturer and defendant
distributor of the ice hockey face mask which the plaintiff was
wearing when he was cross-checked by an opposing team player, as
a result of which the plaintiff suffered a fracture of his fifth
cervical vertebrae necessitating spinal fusion surgery. The
plaintiff originally sued the Canadian corporation which
manufactured the helmet and following further investigation,
amended the complaint to include the face mask manufacturer and
the face mask distributor as additional defendants. The Canadian
corporation which manufactured the helmet was dismissed some time
prior to trial.
The plaintiffs expert engineer testified that the face mask as
designed was defective due to an improper configuration of the
wires comprising the mask. The expert maintained that this
configuration allowed the opponents stick to become snagged in
the face mask during the cross-checking maneuver carried out by
the opponent. The plaintiffs expert contended that a different
wire configuration would have prevented the stick from snagging
and thereby avoid injury. The defendant countered that the injury did
not occur as alleged by the plaintiff, but rather resulted from a
hard blow to the plaintiffs helmet above the right eye. In
support of this assertion, the defendant pointed to the
plaintiffs experts notes, which reflected that he had been
advised by the plaintiffs first attorney that the plaintiff had
suffered a blow to the helmet above the right eye.
The plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon testified as to the
fracture injury sustained by the plaintiff, which he described as
a fracture of the fifth cervical vertebrae necessitating spinal
fusion surgery. The plaintiffs physician related that although
he has recovered well enough to return to playing ice hockey, the
plaintiff suffers from intermittent pain and has sustained a
permanent reduction in movement. The plaintiff made no claim for
lost earning and at time of trial, was attending dental school.
The plaintiff presented $________ in medical bills. The jury found for
the defendant. Plaintiffs expert engineer: Igor Paul from MIT.
Plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon: Joseph Barr from Mass.
General Hospital in Boston, Mass. Shea vs. Pro Tec. Judge Roger
Donahue, 11-14-88. Attorneys for plaintiff: Ed Hinchey and Bill
Dailey, Jr.. both of Boston, Mass.; Attorney for defendant
manufacturer: Robert Kutner from Boston, Mass.; Attorney for
defendant distributor: Ronald Langlois from Quincy, Mass.
5 ways to win with JVRA
JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.
Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.