Specialized being sued for $10m in helmet lawsuit

Well, now he is no more of an idiot. Probably had the chance to purchase a MIPS but didn’t cause ‘too expensive’. What’s your head worth? Say what you will but I’ve had enough instances when better with helmet than without

The McDonalds coffee case often gets wheeled out in discussions like this, but the facts suggest that lawsuit was entirely appropriate, and a just judgement obtained.

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit; Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree   burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;

McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

 So rather different to the suit in question.

More details available at your nearest search engine, or here https://centerjd.org/content/faq-about-mcdonald’s-coffee-case-and-use-fabricated-anecdotes

I've managed to fit in some more lab tests, but the latest round has been inconclusive

This is another of those, gee I was driving with a sandwich in one hand, the steering wheel in the other and hot cup of coffee between my legs and the coffee spilled and burned my leg, oh no it can't possibly be the fault of the driver, no it's the fault of McDonalds who made the coffee too hot. Give me a break, this is going to be another of those stupid lawsuits that the defendant is going to win even though it was his fault for falling and helmets do not guarantee you won't be injured, but the jury will award the money anyways.

Interesting to see that the claimant needed an XXL helmet to fit his head ...

Perhaps Specialized shouldn’t sell helmets to big-heads like him?!

I have bought 2 specialized helmets over the years.

Both contained multiple stickers in the vents with numerous warnings about what the helments will not do, including frankly nonsense statements such as "this helment may not protect you from sharp objects" (well duh, it's got lots of holes in it), and "do not wear whilst climbing trees" to the nth degree.

Assuming US helments are the same, I can imagine there being so many disclaimers on the helmet as to make it preposterous to make a claim about safety that the product doesn't assert.

Still, the publication of evidence as to their (non)effectiveness will be interesting. (Disclaimer, I wear a helmet out of habit and to keep the wife quiet).

I expect that so long as his lawyer wears a helmet; he will certainly win.

Not sure why everyone here is being so derisive... this is the logical conclusion of helmets of dubious use being sold amid great promises of safety.

There are US states where it isn't what the manufacturer states the product will protect from, it is what the consumer believes it will protect them from that is the criterion by which the product is legally rated.  Thus, if a person buys a helmet under the impression that it will protect them in a fairly normal cycling collision, and it doesn't, they can sue.

There has been a thirty year propaganda campaign to sell helmets, implying that they will save your life in most collisions, so it is hardly surprising that most people believe the BS.  The BBC and the rest of the media with their lazy journalism "helmet saved my life" stories have a lot to answer for.

The world’s gone mad. He might even win.....the family of the idiot who stuck his head out of the Gatwick Express window and had it removed won their case stating the warning sign was too small.

FFS.....no one takes any responsibility these days.

It's the good ol' US of A.

No NHS for extended medical care.

No continuing social security safety net.

Standard practice to sue in US in such a case - the injured party’s insurer will always try to find some other party’s insurer to pick up the medical bills. I can’t imagine they would have much luck. Spesh will have plenty of proprietary test data to show product meets its spec, and I can’t imagine the judge allowing that they should have added a whole load of extra features that were not advertised, regardless of the cost. 

Only in America!
We all know that a cycling helmet only gives minimal protection in a fall. Motorcycle helmets do a good job but kinda takes the fun out of a ride.....

People tend to forget that a lid can only help so much. I’ve had people with totally wrecked lids ( I mean in pieces) after big ‘offs’ trying to tell me how the lid did a “great job”, not realising that if the lid  was in that state, it actually failed, and didn’t protect them at all. Lids ( generally ) don’t have sacrificial structures ( like panels of a car around a safety cell ) and if the lid disintegrated, it’s done nothing substantial to mitigate the impact. If it’s deformed, without disintegrating it has, if it’s in pieces, the best it’s achieved is reduce any cuts and scrapes on the riders head, but hasn’t done anything particularly effective, regarding significant injury prevention / mitigation.

Quote:

he trusted that it would keep him safe during typical bicycle accident scenarios.

He probably ought to have read some of the fun (and lengthy!) threads on a certain cycling website, because I was under the impression that the consensus was that helmets don't keep you safe during typical bicycle accident scenarios...  They keep you safe if you're stationary and then fall over sideways, or hit your head on a tree branch, but cornering at speed? Probably not.

I do like the quote in the article at https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2019/08/28/denver-man-sues-specialized-10-million-helmet-product-liability-case#.XW5cXG5FzIU, though:

Quote:

Specialized denies the claims; this week both sides asked the U.S. District Court in Denver to issue a protective order to prevent the public from seeing confidential trade information during the litigation.

I'm not sure if he or his lawyer is more brain damaged

From Australia’s ABC a day ago, a news article about a pro surfer who wears a helmet contained a relevant quote:

Neuroscientist Alan Pearce, an Associate Professor in the School of Allied Health at La Trobe University who specialises in sports-related concussion, said helmets only offered protection against skull fractures.

"Helmets don't protect the brain from injury, concussion injuries or possibly even brain bleeds, because the brain still moves inside the skull," he said.

"Some players go out there in other sports such as football wearing a helmet and they get what we call a super-hero complex.

"They become riskier with their techniques or they go in harder because they've got the false impression that the helmet is going to protect their brain."

Dr Pearce dismissed the notion that wearing a helmet could lessen the severity of concussion.

"There's no such thing as a mild, moderate or severe concussion any more … if you are concussed you are concussed."

I can't see him winning unless there was a specific manufacturing defect and I'd be surprised if Specialized claim that their helmets keep you safe in the event of an off.

Buys helmet listed without MIPS - complains helmet did not have MIPS.

This is as stupid as me buying some leathers without knee sliders and then getting my knee down and complaining I don't have knee sliders.