Denver man sues Specialized for $10 million in helmet product liability case

[Unpiste]

And this is why a couple ounces of styrofoam costs $100.

Here you go: http://www.amazon.com/Bargain-house-Bicycle-Cycling-58cm-62cm/dp/B0744HG2R3/

$5.93, with free shipping.

 

[Seldomski]

Here you go: http://www.amazon.com/Bargain-house-Bicycle-Cycling-58cm-62cm/dp/B0744HG2R3/
View attachment 79537
$5.93, with free shipping.

II guess if you* think a $5.93 product is sufficient to protect what's in your skull, go for it?

Reviews on it are pretty priceless - LOL.

*the general you, not @Unpiste specifically.

 

[raytseng]

Ok the $5.93 is a bit of a stretch

But there is some hidden truth that from a pure PROTECTION factor, any certified helmet, even a $20 one, is basically just as protective as your $200 helmet.

The costs of the helmet are mainly for performance, comfort, appearance, R&D/marketing. After the requirements for safety standard are met, the other non-safety factors are maximized (otherwise the helmet doesn't sell).
The underlying costs and also price of a helmet doesn't inherently make it PROTECT any better; they protect more or less the same; the money and costs is only getting you improvements in all those other factors.

People believe they are more safe then they really are when they have a helmet. It is like how people believe a car airbags are like falling into a soft pillow because they imagine the slo-mo crash test dummies; instead of being violent real-time explosions.

Perhaps the lawyers are playing a meta PR game here to try to get a settlement and avoiding bad press and associations of Specialized with brain injury and they are "not as safe as they could be" which while uncomfortable, is the logical truth.

Keeping that out of the search results though will maintain that charade that bike and snow helmets are the magical devices that are all about 100% safety and will save you 100% rather then the truth that it is just as safe enough to comfortably pass the certification tests.

 

[Primoz]

II guess if you* think a $5.93 product is sufficient to protect what's in your skull, go for it?

No idea for USA, but whatever helmet is sold in EU needs to comply to certain standard. This means that even 10eur helmet is just as safe as 500eur helmet, and this has been proven numerous times with independent tests. But catch is somewhere else... while cheap helmets are as safe as expensive ones regarding crash tests etc. they might not be as comfortable (nice fit, proper ventilation etc.), which then means you rather put it on handlebar then on head, or even leave it at home, and end result is, when you crash you don't have it on head, so on the end it's much less safe then properly fitting one.
On the other side, I totally agree 200, 300eur or more expensive helmets are bs. My current bike helmet is Ekoi, for which I'm sure noone heard of it, yet it's still helmet that's used by many protour riders (AG2R La Mondiale with Romain Bardet, Tony Gallping... is using them) and xc mtb riders (KMC-Ekoi-Orbea team with Annie Last, Florian Vogel, Victor Koretzky, Thoms Litscher, Milan Vader). Helmet is around 60eur, it's under 200g helmet (for my L-XL size it's 198g) and has all the bells and whistles every top helmet has, except for 300eur price tag.

 

[Unpiste]

Keeping that out of the search results though will maintain that charade that bike and snow helmets are the magical devices that are all about 100% safety and will save you 100% rather then the truth that it is just as safe enough to comfortably pass the certification tests.

Your premises are all true, but I'm really not seeing any charade. No piece of safety equipment is 100% effective, but that hardly means that safety equipment is useless or that when a piece of equipment does fail, it's not okay to ask whether it performed up to expectations. Sometimes that investigation necessarily ends up taking place within the court system.

In this case, I certainly don't see anything in the OP to place the blame either on Specialized or on the guy suing them. We certainly don't have enough information about the crash to say anything meaningful about how the helmet should have behaved.

 

[razie]

I'm in a bunch of aggressive/risky sports, from skiing to ski racing to on and off-road motorcycle racing... and it's always obvious that, on the price side, you pay as much as your head is worth! Cheap things have cheap technology - the reverse is not always true, but more often than not it is. And there is no law against checking the specs and reviews... before you buy.

Bike helmets are not built like downhill bike helmets, which are not build like ski helmets, which are not built like ski racing helmets, which are not built like street motorcycle helmets or off-road motorcycle helmets, where you can still choose between the 50$ helmet and the 1,500$ helmet Where do you deem it "sufficient" is a matter of judgement and choice.

The reality is that even the 5$ helmet is better than not having one and that if this were to happen to you/me and leave us with permanent brain injuries, you/I (or our families) might do the same... it's not the same as suing my seat manufacturer for not having installed an airbag, due to a road rash... where do you draw the line, when a sweet-talking injury lawyer convinces you (or your sobbing spouse) it was not all your fault, in the emergency room, between painkillers (or anti-depressants)?

The system and the law should be built to handle this. It's how we progress forward - at the cost of excesses either way. Up here (#wethenorth) this kind of stuff is less of an issue, since being (restored to) healthy is a right... but still, it is "permanent brain injury"... so, while that could still be penned by a sympathetic doctor, I'm not going to judge this one... other than stating the obvious above.

 

[NZRob]

Well by the sounds of it he would have died without a helmet so perhaps looking at it a different way the helmet has done a great job.

 

[Unpiste]

Well by the sounds of it he would have died without a helmet…

Based on what?

…so perhaps looking at it a different way the helmet has done a great job.

So, brain injuries are a normal and expected result of crashing a bike?

I’m with @razie. We hardly know anything about what happened based on this report, so let’s not pass judgement. It’s kind of disgusting that people are jumping to the defense of a large company, which is more than capable of defending itself, meanwhile demonizing a guy who’s allegedly suffered brain injuries due to a defective helmet.

 

[James]

Among those decisions was the choice to not use MIPS technology on the model...

Only one excerpt from an excerpted filing, but-
Ridiculous.
A) You want MIPs, by a helmet with it, not one without it.

B) MIPs is only for twisting of the outer shell. It decouples the outer shell from the inner liner. Won't do anything for an impact that crushes a skull.

 

[Unpiste]

You want MIPs, by a helmet with it, not one without it.

According to his complaint, Victor Moreno said he was wearing a size XXL Specialized Max helmet model when he overcooked a corner while cycling in June 2017.
…
"Mr. Moreno bought the helmet because it was one of the few designed to fit his head and because he trusted that it would keep him safe during typical bicycle accident scenarios," he said in the complaint filed in June.
…
The complaint charges that Specialized made manufacturing and testing decision that "resulted in the helmet being cheap instead of reasonably safe during common bicycle accidents."
…
Among those decisions was the choice to not use MIPS technology on the model (In November 2018, Specialized announced that MIPS would be available in all its helmet models; the Max model has been discontinued).

But yeah, obviously this guy should have just bought a different helmet.

 

[razie]

Well by the sounds of it he would have died without a helmet so perhaps looking at it a different way the helmet has done a great job.

Totally. Had a kid in emerg with a cracked ski racing helmet, still on... Doc pointed out that he was very happy to see he had a helmet... and we didn't sue anyone, although I made a warranty claim, denied with "the helmet did what it was designed to do" (duh!) and before he was on snow again, couple weeks later, he had the best helmet we found.

You can only prepare as well as you can... ... like motorcycle riders say: you don't dress for the ride, you dress for the fall!

 

[Unpiste]

…and we didn't sue anyone…

Probably a good plan, considering it doesn’t sound like you would have had a case and the helmet worked exactly as designed.

Which, to be clear, may very well be true here as well. Or maybe the helmet was actually inadequately designed.

 

[martyg]

Follow Jim Moss at Recreation Law. Jim has, or does, represent many of the companies discussed here. He also sits on the ASTM committee that decides the protocols for helmet testing. He is very vocal on this subject. Through Jim you can gain an understanding of protocols and specs from a reliable source of the truth, instead of someone with an opinion.

 

[Primoz]

We hardly know anything about what happened based on this report, so let’s not pass judgement. It’s kind of disgusting that people are jumping to the defense of a large company, which is more than capable of defending itself, meanwhile demonizing a guy who’s allegedly suffered brain injuries due to a defective helmet.

What I'm actually more disgust is this "lets sue the hell out of everyone" mentality you have in USA. You should be responsible for your action. If you are riding so that you overshoot the corner and therefore crash, it's really not helmet's manufacturer fault but only your own. Ride appropriately to your knowledge and terrain. And if you screw up, take responsibilities for that.
I'm certainly not defending Specialized. It's not my problem if they get sued. Even if they lose and as result of that, every single bike rider who ever crashes goes and sue them and win. I don't give a sh**t about Specialized or any other company. But this mentality that it's never my fault and I will sue everyone for my own mistakes is what is simply incredible stupidity for me.
PS: I would actually dare to bet, that guy got his injuries due result of crash and his own mistake (if there wouldn't be one, he wouldn't crash), and not because he was normally riding bike and all of a sudden helmet damaged his brains. But even in case of crash, it's impossible to expect you will be 100% safe, just because you have helmet, regardless if helmet is good or not.

 

[Unpiste]

@Primoz, no one is claiming this guy didn't crash and no one is claiming the crash is somehow Specialized's fault. Certainly no one is claiming "he was normally riding bike and all of a sudden helmet damaged his brains [sic]". Where did that idea even come from, and do you honestly think it would get anywhere in a US court?

The actual claim is that Specialized didn't adequately design this helmet to serve its intended purpose, and I'd humbly suggest you familiarize yourself with US consumer protection law and enforcement before making claims about a rampant "'lets sue the hell out of everyone' mentality". I'll readily admit this is a dubious claim, and yes, the US legal system has its share of problems. But if there's any truth to the claim, this lawsuit is pretty much the only avenue available to seek recompense.

Unless you can point to solid information exonerating Specialized, any claims that this guy should take responsibility for his actions (and, if I may paraphrase, "Shut up and be a man!") fall squarely into the territory of victim-blaming. That's a toxic attitude, and we're better than that.

It's possible to both take responsibility for one's actions and admit that, just maybe, one's actions were not entirely responsible for harm suffered.

 

[razie]

Certainly no one is claiming "he was normally riding bike and all of a sudden helmet damaged his brains [sic]".

...but that's exactly what happened - if you leave out some minor details...

 

[Ross Biff]

Only one excerpt from an excerpted filing, but-
Ridiculous.
A) You want MIPs, by a helmet with it, not one without it.

B) MIPs is only for twisting of the outer shell. It decouples the outer shell from the inner liner. Won't do anything for an impact that crushes a skull.

Along with the decision not to BUY a MIPS helmet. All sympathy to the injured party and relatives but sneaky legal weasel words do not help the situation......wait.. That sounds like my first sentence...As noted previously, we do not have enough details to pass any judgment on this specific case but the " it was someone else's fault" mentality helps mainly the lawyers.... Sad.

 

[scott43]

Having relatives in Europe, I know there is a certain mindset about the US system of litigation. Even in Canada we get a chuckle out of things down there from time to time. The civil litigation in the US is kinda like the criminal litigation in Italy..utterly ridiculous and ungodly expensive at times. So I get the automatic assumption that the guy has just hired and ambulance chaser to get some dough. That absolutely doesn't mean this case is not legitimate and will change the behaviour of corporate entities for the better..but you have to understand why people are jaded when they hear these things.. I mean, look at the history..

 

[cantunamunch]

That absolutely doesn't mean this case is not legitimate and will change the behaviour of corporate entities for the better..but you have to understand why people are jaded when they hear these things.. I mean, look at the history..

I'll be the voice of optimism, thus:

If there was to be an event that changed current "good enough for the state of the art" thinking in helmet design to something more along "this is a serious research and design priority beyond simple marketing", then that event would look very similar to this here lawsuit.

I'm not saying this particular lottery ticket will hit the jackpot, but winning requires purchase of ticket(s). And that metaphor should tell you about how likely I think this specific one is to succeed.

 

[JeffB]

Late to the party, but re the confidentiality order, it’s likely it was a consent order that both sides asked to be entered so the reporter said that both sides petitioned, etc. That’s because plaintiff wants the confidential business and design information in response to routine written discovery requests, but the company won’t produce the documents without the protective order ... very common. Happens all the time. But that whole transaction/ give and take gets lost in translation for non-lawyers, ie the productive members of society. Now ... back to writing a consent protective order for my client.