FOOTBALL INJURY I HELMET LAW I TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY ATTORNEY I PERSONAL INJURY I PRODUCT LIABILITY I SCHOOL LIABILITY I SCHOOL NEGLIGENCE I HELMET INJURIES I TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY I HEAD INJURY I CASE STUDY: San Diego Public School Student Sustained Football Injuries and Head Trauma from a Defective Helmet – Private Settlement and Plaintiff Verdict in the amount of $7.1 Million
February 12, 2021
Football injury, sustained after a high school student utilized a defective helmet provided by his school. The defective helmet failed to comply with helmet law standards, specifically as to necessary warnings. As a result of the defective helmet the injured football student sustained a concussion, subdural hematoma and otherwise suffered a traumatic brain injury. The injured football student retained the services of a traumatic brain injury attorney and secured a confidential settlement for personal injuries and compensation for the traumatic brain injury.
Case Study: Freshman Football Athlete was provided a Defective Helmet from his Public High School and School Coaches failed to alert medical personnel after Student sustained a Concussion and Subdural Hematoma.
On October 17, 2013 the plaintiff, a Monte Vista High School freshman football athlete was provided a football helmet from his school and expected to play against Mount Miguel High School. During the game the freshman football player sustained a football injury and complained to his coaches that he felt ill following impact to his head. Despite the fact that the coaches were trained on recognizing signs of a concussion and head trauma, they failed to alert medical personnel. Further the helmet provided by the school did not protect the plaintiff like it was advertised to do and was otherwise defective due to inadequate warnings and false advertisement. As a direct and proximate result of the delayed medical attention, the coaches’ failure to adequately supervise and the defective helmet, the plaintiff sustained a severe shock and injury to his brain resulting in permanent disabilities. The injured football player underwent multiple surgeries and was placed on a ventilator. Currently the plaintiff is unable to walk, care for himself and is fully dependent on others to survive.
The injured football player filed a complaint against Grossmont Union High School District, Monte Vista High School and Schutt Sports Manufacturing Company, the manufacturer of the defective helmet. The amended first complaint for damages and personal injures alleged four causes of action including: (1) Liability for Public Employees Pursuant to Government Code §815.2 and §820 against the Grossmont Union School District and Monte Vista High School; (2) Negligent Product Liability; (3) Strict Product Liability; and (4) Failure to Warn.
Ultimately the defendant manufacturer settled the product liability claims for a confidentially sum before trial. Once resolving the defective helmet claim, the plaintiff proceeded at trial against the school district. Following the prolonged jury trial a verdict was reached in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $7.13 million.
Case: Rashaun Council vs. Grossmont Union High School; California Superior Court; County of San Diego; Case No: 37-2014-00021895-CU-PL-CTL; Filed: 05/27/2015
Consumers injured by a manufacturing defect, design defect and/or a failure to warn have a personal injury claim. There is no codified helmet law, however all products including helmets must include appropriate and sufficient warnings. More specifically consumers injured by a product may have a viable product liability lawsuit if there were inadequate product warnings. California product liability law recognizes that even a ﬂawlessly designed and produced product may nevertheless possess such risks to the user when the warning is either inadequate or absent. Even a flawless product without a suitable warning becomes “defective” simply by the absence of a warning. Thus, manufacturers have a duty to adequately warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products.
In this instance the manufacturer paid out a confidential settlement because they were strictly liable to the plaintiff for a failure to adequately warn of the risks of using the helmet and made false advertisements as to the helmet itself.
Two types of warnings may be given. (1) If the product’s dangers may be avoided or mitigated by proper use of the product, the manufacturer may be required adequately to instruct the consumer as to how the product should be used. (2) If the risks involved in the use of the product are unavoidable, the manufacturer must give an adequate warning to enable the potential user to make an informed choice whether to use the product or abstain.” (Buckner v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 522)
For more articles discussing product liability please see the links below:
There are two types of product liability claims. The distinction between strict product liability claims versus negligent product liability claims are discussed in the articles linked below:
Additional articles discussing compensatory damages in personal injury actions, including negligence, premises liability and product liability cases are linked below:
To better understand what types of damages are recoverable in product liability cases and other personal injury cases, links are included below:
For more blogs discussing Head Trauma Cases, Head Injuries and Traumatic Brain Injury Symptoms see the links below:
If you or someone you know has been injured by a defective product or sustained an injury while using a product, call us today at 619-432-5145 for a free consultation with one of our experienced product liability attorneys and California personal injury lawyers.