[Bell Sports, Inc. v Yarusso~ 759 A.2d 582 (Del. 2000)]
NOTE: THIS IS A Implied and Express Warranties NOT product liability case
In 1991, Brian Yarusso catapulted over the handlebars on his off-road motorcycle while traveling over a series of dirt moguls at a dirt motocross track in Newark, Delaware. He landed on his head, flipped over, and came to rest face down in the dirt. As a result of the accident, Yarusso was rendered a quadriplegic. Yarusso was wearing a full complement of safety equipment, including a Bell Moto-S helmet, a full-face motocross helmet that was designed for off-road use. The Ben Moto-5 helmet complied with the U.S. Department of Transportation standards and was also certified by the Snell Foundation, a leading worldwide helmet research and testing laboratory. The owner's manual for the helmet included the following:
Five Year Limited Warranty:
Any Bell helmet found by the factory to be defective in materials or workmanship within. five years from the date of purchase will be repaired or replaced at the option of the manufacturer. . . . This warranty is expressly in lieu of all other war¬ranties, and any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose created hereby, are limited in duration to the same duration of the express warranty herein. Ben shall not be liable for any incidental or consequential damages....
Introduction:
Your new Moto-S helmet is another in the long line of innovative off-road. helmets from Bell. ... [The primary function of a helmet is to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head. However, it is important to recognize that the wearing of a helmet is not an assurance of absolute protection. NO HELMET CAN PROTECT THE WEARER AGAINST AIL FORESEEABLE IMPACTS.
Yarusso filed suit against Bell. He testified at trial that he had purchased the helmet based on Ben's assertion that the helmet's primary function was to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head.
Questions:
1. On what grounds could Yarusso sue Bell?
2. What will Bell argue in its defense?
3. Who will prevail?
4. What do you think about how the court ruled?