The helmet manufacturer was proud of its litigation record - it had never had a jury verdict against it, until now that is. Our client, a 22 year-old female was a passenger on a motorcycle sitting behind the operator when it collided with a motor vehicle. It was a severe impact that threw our client into the air causing her helmet-covered head to strike the cement roadway with considerable impact. She was rendered unconscious and sustained brain damage.
Our formal complaint charged the manufacturer with placing a product on the market that it knew, or should have known, would not protect one's head in the event of an impact such as occurred in our case. In defense, they introduced engineering experts who testified that the subject helmet complied with safety standards, and was safe enough for use even in accidents resulting in high impact crashes. After four weeks of trial however, we offered sufficient technical, engineering, and scientific proof that convinced the jury that the severity of our client's injury would have been far less had the manufacturer employed a safer design feature so as to absorb more of the impact.
This was the first jury verdict against this national company and sent a chilling message to the industry that the Finz Firm, on behalf of our injured client and other similar consumers, demanded, and were entitled to receive safer products.