In the Court of Appeal for British Columbia from the Supreme Court of British Columbia stand the More family challenging one of the largest hockey manufacturing and designing companies in the world, as well as one of the nation's biggest certification associations as well. On September 13 and 14 of 2011, the eight grounds of appeal focusing on the concept of negligence and civil liability were raised, especially spotlighting a misinterpretation by the judge of the Supreme Court for neglecting the cause of injury as well as negligence residing in the manufacturing and certification process of the defendents to protect against the type of injury introduced in the court case.
Background
The first case took place in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on October 1st, 2010 where plaintiffs: Sucha More, Cindy More, the parents of the victim, Darren More, challenged the integritive process of designing and manufacturing hockey …show more content…
On top of this, the 17 year old had experienced two concussions wearing a CSA certified helmet and a teammate of his had also suffered a concussion wearing the same helmet as well. Having experienced this, More knew the limitations of protection provided by the product even with the CSA label.
One of the many warning labels on the helmet quotes, "protective equipment will not eliminate all injuries but may reduce their severity and frequency. This product is designed to minimize the effect of superficial injuries." The stickers clearly state that although it may protect from superficial injuries to a significant degree, injuries are still possible. It continues to say, "severe head, brain, and spinal injuries including paralysis or death may occur despite using this helmet" (99)
My