Reference no: EM131961919

Case Study: Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox

Purpose:

The purpose of this assignment is to explore strict liability is applied to abnormally dangerous activities because of their extreme risk. Abnormally dangerous activities involve potentially serious harm to persons or property and a high degree of risk that cannot be completely guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care.

Objectives:

1. Identify the purpose of a consumer-expectations test

2. Explore Product liability, Privity of contract, Requirements, and Defenses

3. Research unreasonably dangerous products

Preparation Instructions:

1. Compose your Case Study: Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox assignment in Microsoft Word or a compatible word processing application.

2. The paper should be formatted and typed using Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced, and one-inch margins (no exceptions).

3. The length of the paper should be at least 4 pages (including the title and references pages).

4. Use APA 6th edition formatting and use a minimum of 2 references.

Content Instructions:

Baseball umpire Edwin Hickox was injured during a baseball game in Washington, D.C., while wearing a mask made by Wilson Sporting Goods Co. Hickox filed a suit in a court in the District of Columbia against Wilson, alleging product-liability claims. A jury issued a verdict in Hickox's favor. Wilson appealed.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that to determine whether the product's design was defective, the consumer-expectations test was the appropriate standard in this case. Under that standard, "considering all the evidence, a reasonable juror could conclude that an ordinary consumer would have expected the mask to perform more safely than it did."

1. What is the "consumer-expectations test"?

2. What factors did the court consider in determining whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to establish reasonable consumer expectations?

3. Can a jury make "inferences" to arrive at a verdict?

4. How did the appellate court's conclusion in this case affect the parties?