Assignment:
Day v Safe Hockey Inc.
During the 2008 NHL regular season Brennen Day suffered a devastating brain injury while playing ice hockey. The plaintiff suffered a serious subdural haematoma (SDH). At the time he was wearing a helmet manufactured by Safe Hockey Inc. Day filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer as well as the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) which is the organization responsible for setting minimum standards for helmets and many other consumer products.
The plaintiffs theory was that the helmet was inadequate for its primary purpose, namely to protect against the type of injury the plaintiff suffered as a result of a rear impact. In order to consider this charge, the Court had to determine the purpose for which hockey helmets are designed.
The helmet did contain the following warning on its box;
"Ice hockey is a collision sport which is dangerous. Severe head, brain or spinal injuries including paralysis or death may occur despite using the helmet."
In Canada, any claim for negligence relating to products liability requires the Plaintiff to demonstrate not only that the product was either negligently manufactured or designed or that there was a failure to warn but that the negligent conduct, in fact, caused the plaintiff's loss.
How would you assess the risks inherent in this situation?
What was the manufacturer's duty and in your estimation did they fulfil their duty or not?
What would be the duty owed by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and could they also be held responsible for the damages?
What defenses would be available to the Defendants in this case?
Based on your observations above discuss some of the possible outcomes of this case.