Nike Bauer being sued

[iceNsteel 0]

I think the standards should be higher. Brain injury is a tragedy to the family, and costly to society. Why not do more to prevent it?

Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to force those changes.

Then let's take this to it's logical conclusion: contact sports are dangerous. No peice of equipment can ever prevent all injuries, and therefore to protect people from themselves we need to ban contact sports. If Bauer had sold a defective product, like Toyota, then by all means sue. The issue here isn't a defective helmet, it's people sueing because Bauer cannot do the impossible: make a helmet that will protect absolutely from all injuries.

[furlanitalia 1]

That pretty much sums is it up. And can anyone confirm he was wearing the helmet properly? Knowing midget players I'd say the odds are probably pretty good his chin strap wasn't done up all the way and the helmet could have popped up. I'm just not sure how they'll prove in court he wore it properly.

[shooter27 116]

I just want to put my 2 cents here by first of all saying this is a real tragedy and I hope the game of hockey won't suffer on the long run from this. Now, I can't believe most of you guys are taking sides with the manufacturer, whoever he may be, you are saying, "sure he got a concussion, tough luck, that happens". That is very true, but that doesn't mean that he should be more carefull next time (not the case for this kid) that only means that Bauer, CCM, Reebok and all others must invest more money in helmet designs and have the standards more strict. The examples with the shin and shoulder pads is no good, a broken leg or shoulder heals, this kid has brain injury, and the other example with the car that kills you at 100mph with the seat belt one is a really dumb example. I don't know the exact speeding limits in the US, but guess what, at those speeds the seatbelts and air bags work just fine and save your life, over those limits it's not only illegal to drive but you are on your own.

I'm not saying the parents are 100% right, maybe they are very cheap and gave their only son a century old helmet, we don't have all the details, but the bottom line is that a helmet should protect your head from stuff like that. It's a tough sport and things like this can happen, but that only means that the designs and materials need to be improved. I think the helmet should be one of the most expensive pieces of equipement, the price reflecting the materials and R&D, but when the most expensive helmets cost around 150$ and there are sticks that can break anytime at 200$ and gloves also at 200$, something tells me that there isn't as much put in the helmets departament as it is in the others.

You're entire argument is based on the assumption that since the kid got a concussion then the helmet automatically failed. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Just because he got a concussion does not mean the helmet failed. Helmets are not designed to prevent every injury, just like shoulder pads aren't designed to prevent every shoulder injury and seatbelts can't be designed to prevent every death. Read the warning label that comes on your helmet, it clearly states that there is no way for a helmet to prevent every injury.

I'll give you an example - at one time I got a concussion on an impact where I tripped, was sliding on my butt and hit the boards with my back at a low rate of speed. Would you say in that case the helmet I was wearing failed? Should I have sued the helmet manufacturer? How about when you consider I had just had a concussion six weeks prior and had most likely never healed properly? Should the helmet have protected me from the risk I took by getting on the ice that day?

I think the standards should be higher. Brain injury is a tragedy to the family, and costly to society. Why not do more to prevent it?

Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to force those changes.

If you truly step on the ice thinking that just because you wear a helmet you are immune from concussion then you really need to reevaluate your understanding of how equipment works. There is still so much that doctor's don't understand about the brain and concussions that it would be impossible for the helmet makers to construct a helmet that made the wearer completely immune from concussion, even if making such a helmet is feasible. We don't even know if making such a helmet is feasible or economically viable (e.g. made for a cost that people can afford), so there is no way we can expect current helmets to make us immune from concussions.

[dsjunior1388 81]

It's stupid cases like this that take all the fun out of childhood for the rest of the world. When I was younger playgrounds were full of amazing towers, swings, bridges, etc., and now that some stupid kids fell down and broke their leg or wrist and their parents thought it a good idea to sue the playgrounds have been reduced to boring piles of wood chips. Just one example of many. I hope it gets thrown out.

I remember when the fad in my school was the "demon drop." Little 2nd graders would climb up the "jungle gym" hang up there for a few seconds, while the rest of us cheered, and then drop to the wood chips. It was 13 years ago so I have no realistic recollection of how tall it was, but i would guess it would be 8 to 10 feet high. I never jumped but one kid would basically do it every day, never got hurt. The school tore it down, and about 5 other fun playground toys including the slides, and the monkey bars, and after I graduated to middle school the swings were on the chopping block.

[VakarLajos 5]

Any rodeo fans here?

Interesting to see how bull-riders are usually in Bauer helmets. Would love to hear from somebody familiar with the sport.

[Drewhunz 3]

Last time the PBR was in town, they bought our remaining stock of black Intakes and Intake Fusions.

[Chadd 916]

Any rodeo fans here?

Interesting to see how bull-riders are usually in Bauer helmets. Would love to hear from somebody familiar with the sport.

The primary concern there is skull fractures from getting stepped on by a bull, not concussion protection. I don't think Bauer bears any culpability or liability, but I am interested in the argument that the CSA standards and/or their testing is inadequate.

[VakarLajos 5]

Don't they get tossed pretty high? Possibly landing on their heads?

[JCM_G8GT 0]

"I think the standards should be higher. Brain injury is a tragedy to the family, and costly to society. Why not do more to prevent it?"

You gotta be kidding me. Search the helmet threads. Majority of posters say they purchase based on looks, then if some NHL dude has it, then function. When the performance (as in safety, not looks) is what the customers are willing to pay for, the market will change.

[Sed27 0]

I was doing some research into CSA hockey helmets standards and found the following portions of the preface (you have to pay $60 for access to the full document). The first & second notes seem to be quite clear as to the spirit of the standard.

I am also curious as to what evidence might be presented which would call the CSA's testing methods into question.

This is the fifth edition of CSA Z262.1, Ice hockey helmets. It supersedes the previous editions published in 1990, 1983, 1975, and 1973.

Scope

1.1

This Standard specifies performance requirements and test methods for helmets marketed, sold, and intended for ice hockey. Such helmets may also be used for lacrosse and ringette.

Notes:

(1) The intent of this Standard is to reduce the risk of injury to the head without compromising the form or appeal of the game. This reduction of risk is based on the use of the face protector

(a ) as intended within the rules of the game; and

(b ) in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

(2) Ice hockey is a sport in which there is a risk of injury. Helmets meeting the requirements of this Standard afford no protection from neck or spinal injuries. Severe head, brain, or spinal injuries, including paralysis or death, can occur in spite of using a helmet certified to this Standard.

1.2

This Standard specifies requirements for

(a ) construction;

(b ) shock absorption;

(c ) penetration;

(d ) retention systems;

(e ) field of vision; and

(f ) marking and information.

[raganblink 82]

Old 5000.

I can't remember the details of this incident, but for some reason I thought this kid had his chin strap loose, he had a little hang, and he got FF*#%ing drilled from behind into the boards.

Sad story, but, from what IRC (whatever his mom will say, she'll say different wise) this kid wasn't wearing helmet properly, and he got drilled. If you land awkwardly, I'm sorry, you're going to get messed up even if you're wearing an M11, S19, 9900, etc. Parent needs to come to terms that all his medical bills past and future wont get paid in full by this, plus, a couple mil. for mom and dad and kid to live off of. I think she's just trying to get something back, can't blame her, but come on, its not like this helmet blew apart, if you're not wearing the damn thing correctly you're going to get messed up. Plus, the hit he suffered & the way he landed is going to mess everyone up, no matter what they are wearing.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

I think the standards should be higher. Brain injury is a tragedy to the family, and costly to society. Why not do more to prevent it?

Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to force those changes.

I can tell you there is plenty of time spent on testing and the Standards are changed every 5 years. As we know more things are changed as needed.

As I said when all the facts come out you will see most have you pointed out the reasons this happened.

It should be dropped pretty quickly.

However there isnt anyone that isnt disappointed this has happened and wish the young man the best!

I can't remember the details of this incident, but for some reason I thought this kid had his chin strap loose, he had a little hang, and he got FF*#%ing drilled from behind into the boards.

Sad story, but, from what IRC (whatever his mom will say, she'll say different wise) this kid wasn't wearing helmet properly, and he got drilled. If you land awkwardly, I'm sorry, you're going to get messed up even if you're wearing an M11, S19, 9900, etc. Parent needs to come to terms that all his medical bills past and future wont get paid in full by this, plus, a couple mil. for mom and dad and kid to live off of. I think she's just trying to get something back, can't blame her, but come on, its not like this helmet blew apart, if you're not wearing the damn thing correctly you're going to get messed up. Plus, the hit he suffered & the way he landed is going to mess everyone up, no matter what they are wearing.

This is pretty close to what did happen yes. You are very much on the right track.

That being said as I stated above its tragic and if Bauer (CSA is a Not for Profit Company) did do something as a gesture it would be nice but the parents would have to sign off saying they weren't to blaim!

[Half 2]

I hate how when something tragic the people affected immediately put the blame on someone else and stick their hands out. If the kid wasn't wearing his helmet correctly and got drilled from behind into the boards there isn't much a better helmet could of done.

[frankie56 0]

Even if awarded the full 10 million, the family will not make big money on this. I know these amounts generate a lot of anger, but in these cases the lawyers are usually the only ones who improve their standard of living.

If this child is truly brain injured, this is a young man with a life expectancy of 50-60 years. A brain injured patient will require at least 8-24 hours a day nursing care, then add the lifetime medical bills associated with injuries of this type. He will most likely never be able to work. The 10 million was probably the amount the plantiff's actuaries determined would be need to care for this kid for the next half-century. Payment for a 10 million judgment would probably be a 3-4 million dollar bond of some sort which the court will control to make sure the money is used properly to take care of the child until the child dies.

How long can any family with a brain injured child pay thousands of dollars a month? Not long. Will the child then be abandoned and left to die? Not likely. Who will then pick up the tab? That's right, the government. Who funds the government? Yes, the readers of this board (at least those that pay taxes). The cost to take care of this kid will be the same no matter who pays for it. I'm not saying Bauer should pay the cost, but the truth is taxpayer will if Bauer does not. That will be for the court to determine.

So again, what's wrong with pushing for better helmets? I'm not saying accidents can't happen, or that we should avoid all risk, but if there were higher standards, and perhaps a few injuries could be prevented.

If you think helmet manufactures will do this on their own, you are more optimistic than me. If you make higher standards, the manufactures will have to adjust. What is cheaper for the taxpayer? Adjust the standards higher, or pay for the lifelong care for those suffering tragic, and possibly avoidable, accidents?

[frankie56 0]

Then let's take this to it's logical conclusion: contact sports are dangerous. No peice of equipment can ever prevent all injuries, and therefore to protect people from themselves we need to ban contact sports. If Bauer had sold a defective product, like Toyota, then by all means sue. The issue here isn't a defective helmet, it's people sueing because Bauer cannot do the impossible: make a helmet that will protect absolutely from all injuries.

That's your conclusion, not a logical conclusion.

[hunterphfr 12]

Last time the PBR was in town, they bought our remaining stock of black Intakes and Intake Fusions.

That explains why I've been unable to find a replacement large Intake in black to replace my old one.

[raganblink 82]

That's your conclusion, not a logical conclusion.

His post was slightly sarcastic, but, the point is made with it.

[fiimb 1]

I'm not gonna go and say the child and parent didn't have responsibilities of their own to minimize risk. If you're not wearing a properly sized helmet then you take additional risk. yes, they have responsibility.

but okay. what I want to see is the standard raised, pushing manufacturers to improve helmet designs to reduce as much injury as possible. law suits are a good way of achieving this.

for you dicks to spin that argument to "helmets should reduce EVERY INJURY EVER DISCOVERED" is assinine.

i'm not convinced helmets are doing all they can. and the M11 is an example that more can be done.

['fitz 0]

Two years ago a good friend of mine was hit from behind into the bench and is no longer able to play hockey due to the severity of the concussion he got. He may have quite possibly ended up with at least an NCAA scholarship. The guy that hit him, on the other hand, got drafted in the 1st round to the OHL. Bottom line hockey is a rough game and sometimes shit happens. Everybody takes a risk stepping on the ice, and sometimes bad things happen.

[iceNsteel 0]

Standards have to be realistic in the economic impact they have on companies. Again, going back to the car thing: we could build cars to be small tanks and then pretty much no one would die in car wrecks. The problem is that few people could afford cars. Just the same, while no one disagrees that we don't need good standards for helmets, we have to take into account how affordable the end product is going to be, and how practical to use the product is going to be.

[Bravada 442 0]

You gotta think they'd make sure the helmet was still certified before bringing the suit. But, if it's not (and I didn't RTA yet) then, they can add the league he played in and the ref of the game in which he got hurt to the suit.

Not quite sure how it works with amateur hockey in Canada, but here in the States during every High School level game and below I ask the coach "Coach, can you please certify that all your players are properly equipped as per National Federation of High School regulations?" That puts all of the onus on the coach because its not really practical for the officials to be aware of the certifications of every player on a specific surface.

[gxc999 7]

Standards have to be realistic in the economic impact they have on companies. Again, going back to the car thing: we could build cars to be small tanks and then pretty much no one would die in car wrecks. The problem is that few people could afford cars. Just the same, while no one disagrees that we don't need good standards for helmets, we have to take into account how affordable the end product is going to be, and how practical to use the product is going to be.

Sorry, but that's a poor analogy. I think the biggest thing that costs companies money is doing research into how brain trauma works, because it differs greatly from person to person and has long since been misunderstood. We're just now beginning to understand it, as far as I know. Hockey helmet companies are not driving this research or even spending 10% of the money to better comprehend it, universities, hospitals etc are doing that. The challenge is for the companies to simply take that information and design a more efficient helmet. Well, yes, it will mean more initial R&D costs but that's true for every single facet of business as technology and biological understanding increases.  

[rachael7 1]

But what if really protective helmets don't look cool? Or they're the size of football helmets? Bottom line is that every kid is going to want the popular, cool looking, light as air helmet and that's the one they're going to buy. The only way to enforce a higher standard of protection is to increase the requirements of certification. Suing the helmet manufacturer won't help - if they met the standard, they met the standard. If they didn't, fine, then punish them for non-compliance. But if you want to really reduce head trauma, you have to work on the certification standards and sanctioning bodies - the helmet manufactures will always just do the minimum to pass the test.

[hockeyfreak7 0]

Wait, so were mad because Bauer, Easton, etc. havent come up with the technology or innovation fast enough? Its not like theyre producing worthless products. These 9900s, S19s, M11s, etc. are incredible helmets. Obviously helmets will get even better over time, but as for now, these helmets have been tested countless amounts of times and have proven every time that they are very effective at preventing injury.

You cant make the claim that Bauer should make a better product lightly. Its like telling a kid that got a 99% on a test that he should have done better. There will always be room for improvement; dont sue because it isnt perfect. Nothing is ever perfect.

Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that he was using a 5000. You cant be mad at Bauer if you didnt even give him the best protection that they provide.

[DarkStar50 679]

I'm not gonna go and say the child and parent didn't have responsibilities of their own to minimize risk. If you're not wearing a properly sized helmet then you take additional risk. yes, they have responsibility.

but okay. what I want to see is the standard raised, pushing manufacturers to improve helmet designs to reduce as much injury as possible. law suits are a good way of achieving this.

for you dicks to spin that argument to "helmets should reduce EVERY INJURY EVER DISCOVERED" is assinine.

i'm not convinced helmets are doing all they can. and the M11 is an example that more can be done.

Some of the initial claims made by the M11 on their website have already been removed. By even suggesting that the M11 is "concussion proof", the consumer already is misinformed about the product.