Identify the following from the case given in attachment

Parties(plaintiff defendant)

Facts

Issue

Arguments of the parties

Decision and arguments of the Court(conclution)

OF COLOR CASE ANALYSIS Case 7.2 Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 59 A 3d 1267 (2013]. IN THE LANGUAGE tive gave [Edwin] Hickox an umpire's ninth inning, a foul-tipped ball struck OF THE COURT mask with what the representative the mask. The impact of the ball gave McLEESE, Associate Judge. claimed was a new, safer design. Mr. Hickox a concussion and dam- Several months later, Mr. Hickox wore aged a joint between the bones in Mr. * * * At an annual retreat for Major the mask while working behind home Hickox's inner ear. As a result, Mr. League Baseball umpires, a Wilson plate as an umpire during a game in Hickox suffered permanent hearing [Sporting Goods Company] representa- Washington, D.C. In the top of the loss of mild to moderate severity.CASE 7.2 CONTINUED The mask was a traditional Wilson explicitly assented about the mask reflected Wilson's stan- umpire's mask, but had a newly dard marketing approach, and that an designed throat guard that angled at trial to jury instructions that forward instead of extending straight required the jury to make findings ordinary consumer therefore would have down. According to the Hickoxes, under a consumer-expectation test. Specifically, the jury was told that "a expected the mask to perform more safely than other models. There was evidence the throat guard should have had a design is defective if the product fails that Wilson's representative told Mr. center wire and should have extended to perform as safely as an ordinary Hickox that the mask would disperse straight down with no forward customer would expect when the angle. Because the mask lacked these energy and protect against concus- product is used in an intended or sion, and that the mask was the best features, when the ball hit the throat reasonably foreseeable manner." guard, the mask did not deflect the * * * Accordingly, we employ the and safest technology. Mr. Hickox also testified that he believed that compa- ball but rather temporarily trapped consumer-expectation test to evaluate nies like Wilson tested new products the ball, concentrating the ball's the sufficiency of the evidence in and did not sell them unless they energy at the point of impact. As a this case. were safe to use. Jurors could consider result, the mask was driven into Mr. * * * The evidence indicated that such testimony in combination with Hickox's jaw with great force. the mask at issue was more danger- their own reasonable inferences to ous than comparable masks sold at In contrast to the Hickoxes' ver- determine an ordinary consumer's the time, such as hockey-style masks, sion of events, Wilson contended because the mask could concen- expectations. [Emphasis added.] Evidence of industry practice the following at trial. The ball hit the mask above the throat guard, trate energy at the point of impact, can also be relevant to reasonable consumer expectations. Wilson's not on it, and so the same injury rather than distribute energy evenly throughout the padded area of the objective in designing the mask was would have occurred even if the mask mask. Because the energy possessed to disperse energy, not to concentrate had not had a throat guard at all. it. At the time of the incident, Wilson Wilson intended the mask to provide by a pitched baseball is adequate to cause severe injury, the jury could tested its hockey-style masks to deter- protection by deflecting balls away reasonably have concluded that a from the wearer's head, and the mask mask that concentrated energy would mine if they met impact-intensity accomplished this objective during standards, but did not perform such increase the risk of severe injury. testing on its baseball masks. At a the incident. The jury could also have relied on the existence of safer, commer- time when Wilson used energy disper- [Hickox and his wife filed a suit in sal as a design objective for its base- cially available alternatives to draw ball masks and when impact-intensity a District of Columbia court against inferences about the level of safety standards existed for football helmets, Wilson, claiming product liability an ordinary user would expect. There a reasonable juror could infer that an based on a design defect.] The jury rendered verdict for the Hickoxes * * * was evidence that alternative masks ordinary consumer would have expected with detachable throat guards and no baseball masks to disperse rather than awarding $750,000 to Mr. Hickox and forward angle work well and do not concentrate energy. In sum, consider- $25,000 to his wife. [Wilson appealed, excessively restrict the umpire's move- ing all the evidence, a reasonable arguing that the evidence was insuf- ment. There also was evidence that juror could conclude that an ordinary ficient to support the verdict.] Mr. Hickox would not have suffered consumer would have expected the injury to his ear had he been wearing mask to perform more safely than it There are two tests commonly a hockey-style mask or a mask with a did. [Emphasis added.] used to determine whether a prod- center wire and no forward angle. uct's design was defective: the In addition, the jury could have The judgment of the trial court is consumer-expectation test and the concluded that the statements made by therefore risk-utility test. Wilson's representative to Mr. Hickox Affirmed