Nike Bauer being sued

[Chadd 916]

Anyone have access to this Engineering Journal... Report on VN vs EPP published ... Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology

VN vs EPP published

Mixed results, with EPP faring better in the type of impact tested by HECC/CSA. No test seems to factor in any cushion effect of the softer foam in decelerating the head slightly more slowly. One would think that would reduce the concussions, not caused by the initial impact but rather by the head being stopped suddenly and the brain rattling around in the skull. There may be no benefit, but it would be interesting to see someone try it.

The article does make me wonder if there would be a way to include a replaceable accelerometer in the helmet that would "pop" at a certain force and indicate replacement or at least a medical checkup. Obviously there are the legal issues of people getting concussed at lower levels and not being "warned".

[skarbro 0]

Anyone have access to this Engineering Journal... Report on VN vs EPP published ... Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology

VN vs EPP published

Nice find.

The results showed that helmets using expanded polypropylene foam liners are significantly better at reducing linear acceleration; however, helmets using vinyl nitrile foam liners are significantly better at reducing angular acceleration.

[zebra_steve 11]

Skarbro... Do you have access to the full document?

There is information out there, but we need to buy copies if we want to read it.... 8 page report on Analysis of the Impact Performance of Ice Hockey Helmets Using Two Different Test Methodologies

Report has details on the testing procedures: link

[shooter27 116]

Since concussions cannot be prevented by any helmet,

I tend to agree with the basis of this statement. I'm sure there are some concussions that helmets prevent, but, as I said earlier, there is no way that a helmet can prevent ALL concussions. I don't say this as an indictment of helmet design or testing standards, but simply from the standpoint that there is so much that doctors and other scientists still do not understand about concussions, how they're caused, and the extent of the damage that it would be impossible to create a piece of equipment to prevent them. If you don't know the root cause of a problem, how are you supposed to design a solution to resolve the problem. I'm sure at some point science will more fully understand the concussion, and at that point the manufacturers may be able to make a concussion-proof helmet, but we are not currently at that point.

[zebra_steve 11]

I'm sure at some point science will more fully understand the concussion, and at that point the manufacturers may be able to make a concussion-proof helmet, but we are not currently at that point.

I don't know about "fully" - at least in my lifetime - but the research is going on now:UPMC Sports Medicine

Another link... Re concussions and the M11 (and other helmets).... "All helmets do a poor job of preventing concussions': doctor

An Our Game reader asks about the Cascade helmet's ability to prevent concussions": link

[Yakus 0]

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/...010BCSC0539.htm

Here is part of the court case if you guys want an interesting read.

[Chadd 916]

The parts about what he did in the testing and his results are interesting. It's a shame the full study isn't available.

[zebra_steve 11]

Are court records public in Canada? May be available after the case has been decided...

[DarkStar50 679]

Regarding my earlier statement that helmets cannot prevent concussions...

That's a big assumption to make and I have never seen anyone in a position of authority state that.

From Steve's link to NOCSAE, National Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, "Standard Performance Specifications for Newly Manufactured Hockey Helmets".

Section 10, Page 5

10. Labels and Warning

10.1. See Sections 9 in both NOCSAE DOC.001 and NOCSAE DOC.021.

10.2. Each helmet shall have permanently affixed to the exterior of the shell a clearly legible

statement which can be easily read without removal of any decal tape, other temporary

material or permanent part, which contains language which effectively communicates to

the purchaser and user the following information, using the same or similar language:

WARNING

NO HELMET CAN PREVENT ALL HEAD OR ANY NECK INJURIES A PLAYER MIGHT

RECEIVE WHILE PARTICIPATING IN HOCKEY.

I would classify a concussion as a "head injury".

[skarbro 0]

Skarbro... Do you have access to the full document?

Nope. I was quoting from the preview page of that document.

[BobbyD9 0]

Product Liability cases usually fall in to one of 3 catagories:

1) Manufacturing defect (was the product manufactured improperly so that in a case such as this, it did not afford the protection it should have)

2) Design defect (was there a defect in design that did not allow it to perform properly)

3) Failure to warn (did the warning label or lack thereof fail to inform the consumer of the risk of using the product)

Given the fact scenario here I do not see how a case could succeed against NBH on product liability.

There could also be claims of breach of warranty, but did NBH warranty that if you wear our helmet you will not sustain a head injury? I do not think so.

General Negligence is another theory, but as I posted earlier I believe that there are several superseding causes that would alleviate liability against NBH.

Usually any mis-use of the product will also alleviate manufacturer liability. For example, if you take the safety off of a tree stump grinder and then while using it you cut your foot off, the manufacturer is not liable . Similarly, any improper use of the helmet would alleviate liability against NBH.

These types of cases are very fact oriented, but often people try to interject feelings of empathy in to the deliberation process. For that reason, in NY, we have a jury charge that instructs jurors as follows

"In reaching your verdict you are not to be affected by sympathy for any of the parties, what the reaction of the parties or of the public to your verdict may be, whether it will please or displease anyone or be popular or unpopular or, indeed any consideration outside the case as it has been presented to you in this courtroom. You should consider only the evidence, both from the testimony and the exhibits, find the facts from what you consider to be the believable evidence, and apply the law as I (the judge) now give it to you. Your verdict will be determined by the conclusion you reach, no matter whom the verdict helps or hurts".

Many of the posts are sympathetic to the injured person, but in Court they will be of little consequence as jurors most jurors take their obligation seriously.

I hope this helps in evaluating what you read from the press clippings and internet.

[Chadd 916]

Regarding my earlier statement that helmets cannot prevent concussions...

From Steve's link to NOCSAE, National Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, "Standard Performance Specifications for Newly Manufactured Hockey Helmets".

Section 10, Page 5

10. Labels and Warning

10.1. See Sections 9 in both NOCSAE DOC.001 and NOCSAE DOC.021.

10.2. Each helmet shall have permanently affixed to the exterior of the shell a clearly legible

statement which can be easily read without removal of any decal tape, other temporary

material or permanent part, which contains language which effectively communicates to

the purchaser and user the following information, using the same or similar language:

WARNING

NO HELMET CAN PREVENT ALL HEAD OR ANY NECK INJURIES A PLAYER MIGHT

RECEIVE WHILE PARTICIPATING IN HOCKEY.

I would classify a concussion as a "head injury".

There is a big difference between the bold type above and "concussions cannot be prevented by any helmet".

Given the fact scenario here I do not see how a case could succeed against NBH on product liability.

I agree

[BobbyD9 0]

Just read the court document posted regarding the admissibility of the plaintiff's study of NBH helmets. There is a great deal of supposition on the experts behalf that NBH brings forward. The comparison between older and newer products not helpful as the judge must only consider the helmet at issue. The expert will have difficulty proving the reliability of his testing in the field (a requirement in most US jurisdictions).

Interesting that the judge permitted the expert's use with the caveat that this is a bench trial and that because no jury could be misled by the testimony he would allow it.

[team50 20]

Are court records public in Canada? May be available after the case has been decided...

Court records in Canada are public documents, unless ordered otherwise by the Court.

[DarkStar50 679]

There is a big difference between the bold type above and "concussions cannot be prevented by any helmet".

I have been to many helmet product seminars by Bauer, RBK, Easton, and Cascade over many years. This info sheet is the latest item I have received at a seminar for Bauer product given to dealers. The second point clearly states"No helmet can prevent concussions in all situations." That is clear enough for me. Read the entire information sheet. Helmets are a means of protecting the head.

[Chadd 916]

I have been to many helmet product seminars by Bauer, RBK, Easton, and Cascade over many years. This info sheet is the latest item I have received at a seminar for Bauer product given to dealers. The second point clearly states"No helmet can prevent concussions in all situations." That is clear enough for me. Read the entire information sheet. Helmets are a means of protecting the head.

Again, it is saying it can't prevent all concussions, not that it will not prevent any. Big difference.

[DarkStar50 679]

There are three negatives in your comment. ????

[Chadd 916]

I'll make it easier for you.

This:

concussions cannot be prevented by any helmet

and this:

No helmet can prevent concussions in all situations

Are not the same thing. Similar, but very different in meaning. The first actually states that no helmet can prevent a concussion, the second implies that some helmets can prevent concussions in some situations. Either way, none of this is really relevant to the law suit.

[DarkStar50 679]

It is relevant to what the members here read and then tell others. How many times does the customer ask for the "concussion proof helmet"? About 99% of the time. Clarity is the starting point of disseminating information.

[BobbyD9 0]

There cannot be a concussion proof helmet. No such animal can exist. Concussions occur when the brain is thrust forwards, backwards or to the side against the internal part of the skull. The brain has its own "cushioning" inside the skull (without using technical terms). Unless we are going to put material in our skulls, there cannot be such a helmet. Of course all of this is IMHO.

[Chadd 916]

It is relevant to what the members here read and then tell others. How many times does the customer ask for the "concussion proof helmet"? About 99% of the time. Clarity is the starting point of disseminating information.

I've never heard of a customer ask for that. The question I always got (and see here from time to time) is "what is the most protective?" That question we really have no answer for.

[DarkStar50 679]

Wow, consider yourself lucky!! The Cascade marketing campaign has brought this question forward more times than I care to remember. Then the education begins for the customer, followed by the let down, since the customer really believed the "concussion proof" helmet exists.

[Chadd 916]

Wow, consider yourself lucky!! The Cascade marketing campaign has brought this question forward more times than I care to remember. Then the education begins for the customer, followed by the let down, since the customer really believed the "concussion proof" helmet exists.

Any shop that doesn't give them the big let down could potentially have some legal issues.

[zebra_steve 11]

There is a basic misunderstanding by most people on what causes a concussion. This has led them to search for the mythical "concussion proof" helmet. Also, the public seems to believe that there is a "magic" set of equipment that will prevent injuries no matter how physical you play, or how you land when you get hit. Players are essentially wearing suits of body armor now - but there are chinks in the armor and people forget that the basic body\skeletal structure is the basis of the support for this armour.

The game has gotten faster, the hits are higher and harder. The equipment is more and more protective so the players don't have any feel for the amount of force that they are delivering to their opponent - only that you have to hit them harder because they didn't stay down after the hit. The boards are significantly stiffer - in essence a glass wall. I can remember playing at the Mellon Arena in the early '80's..... if you got hit along the boards you could just let the boards absorb the hit and give you a push back into the play.... Tempered glass vs acrylic Plexiglas ... one shatters and the other flexes and cracks... Seamless tempered glass??? .... Just how hard do you need to take someone into tempered glass to shatter it? We have gotten away from how the game was meant to be played... look at the body check.... it's gone from angling a player and pinching\rolling them to get them off balance and take to puck to making them a bug on a windshield and maybe have the guy following you in take the puck....

It's all a vicious cycle.... play harder>>>>> make the equipment more protective because of injuries>>>>> play even harder because now the equipment "prevents" me from getting hurt>>>>>> more injuries leads to more padding>>>>> and so it goes on and on.....

Why does the game look so different than it did in 1979 or 1989 or 1999...... in 1979 we basically wore a T-shirt with shoulder caps and all foam elbows. Fewer big hit because it hurt you as much as it did them. Guys were stripping padding out and going minimalist for speed and movement. By 1989 the Donzis\Douglass "football style" shoulder pads were the rage and most shoulder pads had hard plastic caps. The Jofa elbows witht he hard plastic caps were more common. More big hits and an increase in physical play was the norm. Stick work was on the rise.... lots of whacks to the hands, forearms, and upper arm\shoulders. Hits were getting up into the face more frequently. 1999 brought the new arenas with seamless glass, more equipment innovations.... lighter\stiffer\better padded..... Bigger and faster players meant for higher impact speeds... hits were now commonly hands and elbow at the chest\collarbone\chin cup level. 2009 - players look huge on the ice in their body armour, when you see them i street clothes you don't recognize them....

And through all of this the equipment companies have pretty much tried to keep us safe from ourselves.......

[SirJW 207]

Where is Law Goalie?