Case Study 2.28

Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. v. Daniels, 619 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1981)

1. State the names of the plaintiff and defendant, the volume number, page number, name of the reporter, and the court that decided the case.

Plaintiff =

Defendant =

Volume =

Page =

Reporter =

Court =

2. Describe the facts of the case.

3. What was the cause of action?

4. What was the court's disposition of the case?

5. Does a manufacturer have a duty to warn? What is the presumption if there is no warning?

6. Describe the court's rationale for supporting a duty to warn.

7. How was gross negligence distinguished from ordinary negligence in this case? In your opinion, was the defendant manufacturer grossly negligent? Why or why not?

8. Do you think the outcome of the case would have been different had Rawlings included a warning on the helmet stating the known limitations in the protective abilities of its product?

9. As the athletic director of a boys' high school football program, what risk management steps should you implement in your program as a result of the outcome of this case?

10. In purchasing protective sports equipment, what information from manufacturers would you seek?