solution

The plaintiff suffered a carotid artery tear that left him partially paralyzed after being tackled during a high school football scrimmage. While he was on the field, his coaches removed his helmet, which was then lost. The plaintiff’s mother filed suit against the helmet manufacturers, alleging that the helmet’s liner and foam padding were defectively designed. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants because the plaintiff could not produce the specific helmet at issue and thus could not prove the helmet was defective. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the fact that she could not produce the specific helmet was irrelevant as she was arguing that all of the helmets were defective due to their design. Do you think the appellate court agreed that the specific helmet need not be produced? [A.K.W. v. Easton-Bell Sports, Inc., et al., No. 11-60293, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21108 (5th Cir. 2011).]