987 F.2d 1532 (1993)
The son of appellant father was injured when he lost control of his motorcycle after striking debris in the road. At the time of the accident, he was wearing a helmet manufactured by appellee manufacturer. Appellant brought a product liability action against appellee.
The district court granted summary judgment to appellee, and appellant sought review.
- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The court noted that appellant had abandoned on appeal his theory of defective design and manufacture.
- The court stated that the testimony of appellant's expert, viewed in the light most favorable to appellant, established a lack of consumer awareness of the degree of protection provided by a helmet at medium and high speeds, and that appellee had not proffered sufficient facts to show that its warning was sufficient as a matter of law.
The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment to appellee manufacturer in appellant father's product liability action. Although the claim of defective design and manufacture of a motorcycle helmet was abandoned, it was error to decide summarily a failure to warn claim by resolving a fact issue regarding the open or obvious nature of the limited protection provided by the helmet.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.