Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10208

J E R E M YG R E E N , P la in tiff

–A p p e lla n t, v. SCH U TT SPO RT S M AN U FA CT U RI N G CO

. , a n I l l i no i s Cor po r at i o n; SCH U TT D ESI G N G RO U P, I N C. , a n I l l i no i s Cor po r at i o n; SCH U TT SPO RT S D I STR I BU TI O N CO M PA N Y, a n I l l i no i s Cor po r at i o n; S C H U T T M A N U F A C T U R IN G C O M P A N Y , a n Illin o is C o r p o r a tio n , D e fe n d a n ts

–A p p e lle e s .

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U S D C N o . 5 :05 -C V -1 6 4 -C

B ef ore G A R Z A , ST E W A R T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Je r e m yGr e e n a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s e nt r y o f a t ak e - no t hi ng j udg m e nt fo llo w in ga ju r yv e r d ic t in fa v o ro f d e fe n d a n ts S c h u ttS p o r ts M a n u fa c tu r in gC o ., S ch u tt D esign G rou p , In c. , S ch u tt S p orts D i strib u ti on C o., an d S ch u tt M an u fact u ri n g C o. (col l ect ivel y, Sch u t t)

. G reen contend s that the d i st ri ctcourt
e r r e d i n ( 1) f

o r e c l o s i ng hi s pur s ui t o f a c l ai m f o rg r o s s ne gl i ge nc e , ( 2) e xc l udi ng United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 16, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

See In dus tr ias Magromer Cueros y Pieles S.A. v. La. BayouF urs Inc. , 29 3 F .3d 9 12, 1 9 1 9( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (hol din gth at aj oint pre- trial or der supers edesalloth erp le a din g s)

. 2 t est i m on y of

a w i t n ess of

fered as an expert, ( 3) excl u di n g cert ai n ot h er prof fered
e v i d e n c e , ( 4 ) a d mi t t i n gc e r t a i n e v i d e n c e , a n d ( 5 ) i n s t r u c t i n gt h e j u r y . We a f f i r m. I A tt h e t i m e of

hi s i nj u ry, J erem y G reen w as a st u den tan d f oot ballpl ayer at Levell an d H i gh S chool

. D u ri n g a scr i m m age w i t h an opp osi n g t eam , G reen t ackled a pl ayer an d su f fered a severe burst

- f ract u re of

one of hi s neck vertebra t hatt r agi c al l y r es ul t ed i n quadri pl egi a. G r e e n s ue d Sc hut t , t he m anufac t ur e r o f t he he l m e t he w as w e ar i ng att he t i m e o f hi s i nj ur y, as s e r t i ng va r i o us t he o r i e s o f l i ab i l i t y. The di s t r i c t court gran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en ti n favor of Sch u t ton G reen’ s c l aim s of
m an u fact u ri n g defec t s, m a rketi n g defec t s, an d breach of w arran t y. G reen aba n d o n e d h is neg l i gen ce c l ai m i n t h e j oi n tpre- t ri alorder, an d the court 1 sub sequ en t l y di sm i ssed G reen’ s c l ai m f or pun i t iv e d a m ages ba sed on gross ne gl i ge nc e . The o nl y l i ab i l i t y t he o r y s u bm i t t ed t o t he j ur y w as w he t he rt he he l m e tw as de fe c t ive l y de s i gne d. A f t er an ei gh t

- da y t ri al , t h e j u ry fai l ed to f i n d a d esi gn defect
. T h e di st ri ct
c o u r t e n te r e d j u d g m e n t fo rS c h u tta n d d e n ie d G r e e n ’ s m o tio n fo ra n e w tr ia l. G reen h as t i m el y ap pea l ed, asser t i n g n u m erous i ssues. II G reen contend s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt erred i n di sm i ssi n g h i s gros s
n egl i gen ce c l ai m f

or pun i t ive da m ages. G reen argu es i n h i s bri ef i n g i n t h i s c ou rt t hatTexas l aw “ pe r m i t s g r o s s ne gl i ge nc e c l ai m s i n s t r i c tl i ab i l i t y c as e s ” a nd sim i l a rl y th a t “ a p a rty m a y pu rsu e gross n eg l i ge n ce da m a ge s i n a strictl i a b i l i ty
c a s e .” W e need n o tdeci de w h et h er orun der w h at c i rcum st an ces recover y f or pu n i t ive da m a g es i s avai l able u n der T exas l aw w h en t h e onl y cau se of act i on Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

T EX . C IV . PRAC . & R EM . C O D E ANN . § 4 1.00 4(a) (“[E]xemplary damages m ay be 2 awardedo nlyif da ma gesoth erth annomin al da ma gesareawarded .”). Travelers In dem. C

o. of I ll. v. F uller , 8 9 2S .W .2 d 8 4 8 , 8 5 2(T ex . 1 9 9 5). 3 3 se eki ng r ec ove r y o f

ac t ualdam ages i s a pr oduc t s l i abi l i t y c l ai m as se r t i ng a desi gn defect
. AT exas st atute precl u des an aw ard of exem pl ary da m ages u n l ess act u aldam ages are al so aw arded

. Th e Su prem e C ou rt of T exas h as explai n ed 2 t h at s i m i l arl y, un der t h e com m on l aw , t h ere c ou l d be n o recover y of exem pl ary da m ages unl e s s t he r e w as a n e nt i t l e m e ntt o c o m pe ns at o r y r e l i e f, r e c o gni z i ng

“ t h e l on g set t l ed rule t h at a pl ai n t i f f m u stshow hi m sel f

enti t l ed to com pen sator y
r e lie f b e fo r e p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a r e re c o v e r a b le .” 3 In t h e present c ase, t h e j u ry fai l ed to f i n d a d esi gn defect
. I tt h eref ore fai l ed to aw ard an y act u al da m ages. G reen ass ert ed no ot h er cau se of act i on f or
w h i ch actualdam ages coul d be aw arded

. H e does not c h al l en ge t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s r u l i n g t h a t h e a b a n d o n e d h i s c l a i m f o r n e g l i g e n c e . Ac c o r d i n gl y, a ny fai l u re t o subm i tw h et h er Schu t tw as gross l y n egl i gen tan d w h et h er exem pl ary da m ag e s s ho ul d b e a w ar de d was ha r m l e s s b e c aus e t h e r e i s no b as i s f o rt he predic ate aw ard of

act u aldam ages. III At t r i alG r e e n s o ugh t t o c al la s a w i t ne s s Tho m as “ H o l l ywoo d” H e nde r s o n, a f or m erN at i onalFootbal lLeague l i nebac ker

. Th e di st r i c tcour tconc l uded t hat H e nde r s o n was no tq ual i f i e d a s a n ex pe r tt o opi ne on hel m e tsa fe t y andde s i gn. G reen contend s on ap pea lt h at t h i s r u l i n g w as i n error becau se Sch u t t ’ s defen se hadt w o m ai n c o m po ne nt s : t hatno he l m e tc o ul d b e de s i gne d t o pr e ve ntne c k a nd
s p in e inju r ie s , a s d is t in g u is h e d fr o m h e a d inju r ie s , a n d th e c a u s e o f G r e e n ’s
c a ta s tr o p h ic inju r yw a s th e m a n n e rin w h ic h h e e x e c u te d th e ta c k le , w i th h is head ben tordow n ra t hert han up

. G r ee n co nt ends t hatH ender so n w as qua l i f i ed t o t e s t i f

y ab o ut“ t he v al ue o f f o o t ba l lhe l m e t s , ” t hathi s t e s t i m o ny
w oul d be “ i n m any w ays m or e v al uabl e t han t hatpr ovi ded byany ‘ t ec hni c al Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

Un ited Statesv . Ra

gsdale , 4 2 6F .3 d 7 6 5 , 7 7 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5). 4 Id

. (quoting Bocanegra v. Vicmar Servs., I nc. , 3 2 0F .3 d 5 8 1 , 5 8 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3))

. 5 Id

. at 774-75 ( quoting Bocanegra , 3 2 0F .3 d at 5 8 4). 6 Haun v. I

deal In dus ., I

nc. , 81 F.3 d 5 41, 547(5th Cir. 1 996) (quotin gP regeantv. P

an 7 Am. World

Airways, Inc. , 7 6 2F .2 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 4 9( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 5)) (internalqu ot ationmark s omitte d)

. 4 e xp e r t , ’” a n d t h at“ t hi s w i t ne s s ha d t he a ppr o pr i at e kno w l e dg e , s ki l la nd
e x p e r t is e to g u id e th is ju r yin r e s o lv i n g t h e q u e s t io n w h e t h e rp la in t if f’s te c h n iq u e w a s th e ca u s e o f h is inju r y .” T h e d is t r ic tc o u r td id n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t io n in e x c lu d in gH e n d e r s o n ’s t e s t i m o ny as a n e xp e r tr e ga r di ng “ t he v al ue o f f o o t ba l lhe l m e t s . ” The r e i s no evi denc e i n t hi s r ec or d of t he w i t nes s’ s expe r t i se i n t hi s ar ea. W i t h r e ga r d t o w he t he r G r e e n’ s i nj ur y w as c aus e d by hi s t ac kl i ng t ec hni que, he has not ex p l ai ned on appe al , i n eve n gener alt er m s, w hat H ender so n’ s t es t i m ony w oul d have bee n and ho w i tm ay have as si st ed t he j ury. W e t h eref

ore hav e no ba si s f

or c on cl u di n g t h at any error i n excl u di n g H en derson
a s a w itn e s s w a s h a r m fu l. IV The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d v ar i o us m o t i o ns i n l i m i ne t hatG r e e n f i l e d, a nd G reen contend s t h at t h ese r u l i n gs requi re reversal an d a n ew t ri al

. W e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s e vi den t i ary rul i n gs f or abu se of

di scr et i on . “At ri alcourt

4 abu ses i t s di scr et i on w h en i t s ru l i n g i s ba sed on a n erroneou s view of t h e l aw or a cl earl y erroneou s asses sm en tof t h e evi d e n ce .” If w e f i n d an abu se of 5 di s c r e t i o n i n a n e vi de nt i ar y r ul i ng, w e r e vi e w f o r har m l e s s e r r o ra nd u ps e tt he j u dg m en tbel ow on l y i f t h e evi den t i ary rul i n g af fect ed t h e substanti alri gh t s of t he c o m pl ai ni ng pa r t y. Evi de nt i ar y r ul i ngs ar e har m l e s s i f, i n t he c o nt e xto f t he 6
en ti re re cord , the y h a ve n o effect or “ve rysl i gh t ef fect” on the j u ry ’ s ve rd i ct. 7 Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

T EX . C IV . PRAC . & R EM . C O D E ANN . § 3 3.00 3. 8 Gen. Motors Cor

p. v. Sanchez , 997 S. W.2 d 584, 593 (Tex. 1999) (citing T EX . C IV . PRAC . 9 & R EM . C O D E ANN . §§ 3 3 .0 1 1 (4), 3 3 .0 1 2 (a))

. T EX . C IV . PRAC . & R EM . C O D E ANN . § 3 3.00 1. 10 Sanchez , 99 7 S .W.2d at 594
. 11 5 A G r e en asser t s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed by den yi n g si x m ot i on s i n l i m i ne t hathe f

i l ed t o e xc l ude any ar gum ent s an d ev i denc e r el at i ng t o “ c om par at ive fau l t , assum pti on of the ri sk, com peti t ive sport s doct ri n e, an d rel ated neg l i gen ce def ens es . ” G r ee n does notc hal l enge any s pec i f i c ev i denc e t hatw as adm i t t ed at t ri al , nor does he ci t e an y pa rtof the tri altranscri pt as an exam pl e of evi den ce t h at w as adm i t t ed over t h e obj ect i on s he assert ed i n hi s m ot i on s i n l i m i n e. E v e n a s s u m in g , w i th ou t de ci d i n g, th a t G ree n h a s su ff i ci en tlya p p r is e d th is court of t h e evi den ce he chall e n g e s, w e cann otconcl u de that t h e di st ri ctcourt
a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n . U n d e rT e x a s la w , co m p a r a tiv e re s p o n s ib il ity e x p r e s s ly
a p p l i es t o defective des i gn tort cl a i m s. U n d er T ex a s’ s statu tory sc h e m e , a 8 pl ai nt i f f ’ s r e c o ve r y i n t o r ti s re duc e d byt he pr o po r t i o n he c o nt r ibut e d t o c aus i ng h i s o w n h a r m t h r o u g h a c t i o n s t h a twe r e n e g l i g e n to ro t h e r w i s e fe l lb e l o w s o me l egal st an da rd. ( If t h e pl ai n t i f f ’ s responsibi l i t y exceeded f i f t y percent, rec overy 9 i s barred com pl et el y . ) B u tconsum ers h ave n o du t y t o di scover or gua rd 10 aga i n stprodu ctd e fect s, so a plai n t i f f ’ s fai l u re t o di scover or fai l u re t o gu ard ag ai ns ta pr o duc tde fe c tc anno tr e duc e t he am o unt o f da m ag e s r e c e ive d b y t he p la in tiff

. 11 The r e c o r d r e f

l e c t s t hatSchu t t ’ s ar gum e nt s re ga r di ng G r e e n’ s ro l e i n t he
c a u s a t i o n o f

h i s inj u r yw e r e li m i t e d t o c o n t e n t i o n s t h a tG r e e n ta c k le dim p r o p e r ly byl o w e r i ng h i s h ead a nd m ak i ng f i r s tc o nt ac tw i t h hi s he l m e ta nd t hatno he l m e t c o ul d pr o vi de pr o t e c t i o n t o t he ne c k unde r s uc h c i r c um s t anc e s . The l i ne Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

Jack s on v. Axelrad , 221 S. W.3 d 650, 654 (Tex. 2007) (citing Farleyex rel. Ballman 12 v. M M Cat tle Co. , 5 2 9S .W .2 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 8(T ex . 1 9 7 5))

.

E.g. , M o o re v . P

h i De l ta T

h e ta Co. , 9 7 6S .W .2 d 7 3 8 , 7 4 1 (T ex . App .–Ho u ston[ 1 st 13 Di st.] 199 8 , pet. d enie d) ; Hathaway v. T ascosa Cou nt ry Club, Inc. , 84 6 S .W.2d 614 , 61 6-17 (T ex . App .–Amari llo1 9 9 3 , no writ) ; Con nell v. P ayne , 814 S. W.2 d 486, 488-89 (Te x. App .–Dall a s 1 9 9 1 , writ de nie d)

.

Moore , 97 6 S .W.2d at 741 14 Id

. at 742 (citing C

on nel l , 8 1 4S .W .2 d at 4 8 8). 15 6 b e tw e e n p e r m is s ib le a n d im p e r m is s ib le e v id e n c e is th in , if n o t b lu r r e d , w h e n , in
a c as e s uch as t hi s, i t i s per m i ss ibl e t o of fer evi denc e pe r t i nentt o c om par at ive resp on sibi l i ty b u t i m p erm i ssible t o offer ev i d en ce th a t t h e p l a i n ti ff fa i l ed to gu ard ag ai n sta produ ct ’ s l i m i t ati on s. H ow ever, w e cann otsay t h at t h e di st ri ct
c our ter r ed i n denyi ng G r ee n’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne per t ai ni ng t o c om par at ive
r es ponsibi l i t y. Th e a ss um pt i on o f

t he r i sk as a de fens e t o ne gl i genc e c l ai m s und erTexas l a w h a s b e e n a b r o g a t e d a n d r e p l a c e d b yt h e c o mp a r a t iv e r e s p o n s ib i l i t yr e g i me des c r ibed a bove

. Bu tas di sc uss ed ab ove , t he e vi denc e o f fer ed at tria lt hat 12
m ig h t a r g u a b lyh a v e s u g g e s te d th a t S c h u tta s s u m e d th e ris k s in h e r e n t in pl a y i n g f

o o t b a l l wa s r e l e v a n t wi t h r e g a r d t o t h e d e s i g n d e fe c t c l a i m a nd t he produ ci n g cau se of

Sch u t t ’ s i nj u ry. Th e j u ry w as n oti n st ructed t h at ass u m pti on of t h e ri sk i s a defen se, or even rel evan t , t o G reen’ s c l ai m s. S om e T ex a s ap p e lla te cou rts h a ve discu sse d the “com p eti tive sp orts doc t r i ne. ” U nderthi s doc t r i ne, par t i c i pant s i n co m pet i t ive c ont ac ts por t s m ay

13
r e c o ve r da m ag e s f

r o m i nj ur i e s c aus e d by o t he r pa r t i c i pa nt s o nl y i f t hat ot h er pa r t i c i pa nti nt e nt i o nal l y o rr e c kl e s s l y— not m e r e l y ne gl i ge nt l y— c aus e d t he inju r y . B u t n o n p a r tic ip a n ts s u c h a s s p o n s o r s o rth o s e w h o m a in ta in

14 equi pm entorfac i l i t i es do nots hare i n t hi s r educ ed sc ope of pot ent i all i abi l i t y. 15 T h e com p eti tive sp orts d octrine the refore w a s n ot a d efen se a va i l a b l e to S ch u tt in th is ca s e . A lth o u g h th e r e w e r e re fe r e n c e s to th e d a n g e r o u s n a tu r e o f fo o tb a ll Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

6 0 9S .W .2 d 7 4 3(T ex . 1 9 8 0). 167 1 6F .2 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 9( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 3). 17 7 i n t he pr e s e nc e o f

t he j ur y, i nc l u di n g i n the c l o s i ng ar gum e nt , t he r e w as no di s c us s i o n o f

t he c o m pe t i t ive s po r t s do c t r i ne i n t he pr e s e nc e of t he j ur y andno sug gest i on i n t h e j u ry i n st ructi on s t h at Schu t tcoul d on ly b e liabl e f or i nt e nt i o nalo rr e c kl e s s a c t i o n. B G ree n con ten d s th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt erred by p e r m i tti n g S ch u tt to i nt r o duc e e vi de nc e t hatSc hut tc o m pl i e d wi t h i ndus t r y s t and ar ds s e tb y t he Na t i o n a lOp e r a t i n gCo m m i t t e e o n S t a n d a r d s f o rAt h l e t i cE q u i p me n t(NO C S A E) andt hatN O CSA E i s o f t he v i e w t hatno f

o o t ba l lhe l m e ti s c ap ab l e o f pr o t e c t i ng aga i n stneck i nj u ri es. Th i s evidence w as i n ad m i ssibl e, G reen assert s, becau se c om pl i ance w i t h i ndu st r y c ust om i s nota def ens e t o apr oduc t s l i abi l i t y de si gn de fe c tc l ai m b as e d o n t he Te xa s Supr e m e Cour t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n B oatlan dof Hou st on , I

n c. v. B ailey a nd t hi s c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Car t e rv . Mas s ey - Fe rgus o n, 16 Inc. 17 G r e e n ’s a r g u m e n t s fa i lf o rt w o r e a s o n s . F i r s t , R i c h a r d S t a l n a c k e r , G r e e n ’s
o w n e xp e r t , r e l i e d up o n N O CSA E’ s test i ng s t and ar ds i n hi s e xp e r tr e po r ta nd
as r ef er enc e m at er i alw hen he te st ed hel m et s t o det er m i ne i f an al t er nat e de si gn
w as fe as ibl e . At t r i al , G r e e n el i c i t e d s e ve r alst at e m e nt s f r o m St al nac ke ra bo ut N O C S A E ’ s h i st ory a n d m i ssi on , an d ab ou tN O C S A E ’ s t est i n g st an da rds. G reen
m a y n o t com pl ai n abou tSch u t t ’ s c i t ati on t o N O C S A E st an da rds w h en S ta ln a c k e ra ls o cit e d a n d re lie d u p o n th o s e s ta n d a r d s . S e c o n d , B oatlan dof

Hou st on does not c ategori cal l y precl u de evi den ce of i n du st ry st an da rds i n produ ctl i abil i t y cases. I n ste a d , it h ol ds: ( a) si n ce a
m an u fact u rer’ s l evelof care i s i rrel evan tin a produ ct s l i abil i t y act i on , evi den ce th a t t h e m a n u fa c tu r e r c o m p lie d w ith in d u s tr ys ta n d a r d s is a ls o irr e le v a n t if it Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

See Boa tlan d of Houston, Inc. , 60 9S.W .2 d at 7 4 8 -4 9 ; see a lso C arter , 71 6 F .2d at 3 48 18 (hol ding th at “evidence of indu stry custom is relevant to the ordin ary user’s expectation s” an d relevant toth e ri sk–utilityd et er min ationinT exa s des ignd ef ect cl aim s)

. 8 is in tr o d u c e d fo rth e p u r p o s e o f s h o w in gth a t t h e m a n u fa c tu r e rto o k re a s o n a b le
c a r e in th e d esign of i ts pro d u ct; bu t (b ) ev i d en ce of i n d u stry sta n d a rd s is
r el evanti f

o ffere d to r ebutt he pl ai nt i f f ’ s at t em ptt o pr ove t hata s aferdes i gn
w as t ec hn ologicall y p oss ib l e a n d econ om i ca l l y fea sibl e. T h e rec ord refl ects t hat 18 S chu t t ’ s use of

N O C S A E st an da rds fal l s i n t o t h e lat t er category. S chu t trel i ed
u pon N O C S A E ’ s s t an da rds t o rebut G reen’ s at t em pt t o p rov e t h at a s afer al t e r nat ive de s i gn w as fe as ibl e . Evi de nc e t hatN O CSA E has c o nc l ude d t hatno feas ibl e f

oo t bal lhel m etc an pro t ec tpl ayer s’nec ks i s r el evant t o t he al t er nat ive desi gn el em en tof

a desi gn defectcase. G ree n arg u es th a t t estim on y th a t t h e S ch u tt D N A h elm et “com p l i ed ” w i th N O CSA E st and ar ds c o nf us e d t he j ur y by s ugg e s t i ng t hatt he he l m e t ’ s he ada nd br ai n pr o t e c t i on wer e r e l e va ntt o t he he l m e t ’ s a bi l i t y t o pr o t e c tt he ne c k. But t h e rec ord does not supp ortt h i s c on t en t i on . Th e t ran scr i pt p a ges G reen ci t es ar e : ( a) t e s t i m o ny f

r o m Robe r t Cant u, a ne ur o s ur ge o n and vi c e pr e s i den t of N O C S A E , t h at no N O C S A E

- ap proved hel m et s (w h i ch i n cl u de allhel m et s i n use in h ig h s c h o o l fo o tb a ll) w o u ld h a v e o ffe r e d a n yg r e a te rp r o te c tio n a g a in s t t h is i nj u rytha n the S ch u tt D N Ah elm et d i d ; (b ) testi m on y from P eter H a l stea d , a b io m e c h a n ic a l re s e a r c h s c ie n t i s t a n d te c h n ic a l a d v is o rto N O C S A E , th a t a ll f o o t ba l lg o ve r ni ng bo di e s i n Am e r i c a ( s uc h a s t he N CAA, t h e N F L, a nd t he N a ti on a lF ed era ti on of S tate H i gh S ch oo l s) req u i re th a t he l m ets u sed i n th e ir ga m e s c o m pl y w i t h N O CSA E st and ar ds , an d t h at NO CSA E had s t udi e d t he fe a s ib ility o f h e lm e t d e s ig n s th a t c o u ld p r o te c t t h e n e c k a n d fo u n d t h a t a ll al t erna t ive desi gn s w ere not feasibl e; an d ( c) t est i m on y by K en n et h N i m m on s, e x e c ut i v e v i c e p r e s i d e n to f S c h u t t , t h a tS c h u t th e l m e t s c o m p l ywi t h NOCSA E st an da rds. N on e of

t h i s t est i m on y w as l i kely t o confuse t h e j u ry abou tt h e i ssues Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

9 2 3F .2 d 4 1 6 , 4 1 8( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). 19 9 i n t h e case. Fu rt h er, G reen w as abl e t o cr oss- e x a m in e the w i t n esses on N O C S A E ’ s c u rrent an d hi st ori cal st atem en t s on n eck protec t i on . W h en cr ossexam i ni ng def

ens e w i t nes s H al st ead, G r ee n sugge st ed H al st ead w a s “t el l [ i ng] t hi s j ury [ t hati f

] t hi s hel m etm ee t s N O C SA E , i t ’ s per fec t l y s afe” ; H al st ead d i s a g r e e d : “ No , s i r , I wo u l d n ’ t[ s a yt h a t ]

. . . . I wo u l d t e l l y o u t h a tt h e NOCSA E
s t and ar d do e s no t hav e pr o vi s i o ns f o r t e s t i ng t he he l m e t ’ s ab i l i t y t o pr o t e c tt he
n eck.” T h u s even i f t h ere had been i n i t i alconf u si on f rom t h e m en t i on of
com p l i a n ce w i th N O C S A E stan d a rd s, G ree n ’ s cross -exa m i n a ti on all ow ed h i m to cl ari f y t h e i ssues an d h i s t h eory of t h e case. G r e e n a l s o argu es thatt he pr o ba t ive v al ue o f t he e vi de nc e o n t he N O C S A E s ta n d a r d s w a s “s u b s ta n tia llyo u tw e ig h e d b yth e d a n g e ro f u n fa ir prej u di ce, conf

u si on of the is sues, or m i sl ead i n g t h e j u ry, or by con si derati on s of
u n d u e d e la y , w a s te o f tim e , o r n e e d le s s p r e s e n ta tio n o f c u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e ,” ci t i n g F ederalR u l e of E vi den ce 403. B u t G reen does n otof f er any expl an ati on f o rt hi s a r gum e nt

— t he r e a r e no c i t at i o n s to c as e l aw ort he r e c o r d— andt he
reco rd do es n ot su p p ort i t. C G r e e n a s s e r t s t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur ter r e d b y de nyi ng hi s m o t i o n i n l i m i ne seeki n g t o e xcl u de cert ai n t yp es of st ati st i calevi den ce. G reen ci t es R od rigu ez v . Cr o w n Equi

pm e ntCor

p. f or t h e pri n ci pl e t h a t w e requi re “ a show i n g of 19 subs t ant i als i m i l ar i t y be f or e a dm i t t i ng ev i d en c e o f ot heri nci dent s” and t hat
w i t h ou tsuch a show i n g, “ ot h er i n ci den t t est i m on y si m pl y fai l s t o m eett h e t est of rel ev a n cy . ” G ree n arg u es th a t de fe n s e w i tn ess R ob ert C a n tu referred to st ati stica l da t a w i t h ou tf i rstest abli shi n g t h at t h e sources f or t h e data w ere
s u b s ta n tia llys im ila rto th e fa c ts o f G r e e n ’ s ca s e . Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

7 8 8F .2 d 1 0 7 0( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 6). 20 Id

. at10 82-8 3. 21 10 T h e st ati st i caldata C an t u m en t i on ed on t h e t ran scr i pt pages G reen ci t es in c lu d e : (a ) a s u r v e yo f e v e r yca ta s tr o p h ic h e a d a n d n e c k inju r yo c c u r r in gin f oot balli n t h e U n i t ed S t ates each year, an d (b) a 199 7 N O C S A E r eport of
c at as t r o phi c ne c k i nj ur i e s i n f o o t ba l lo c c ur r i ng f

r o m 1 97 7 t hr o ugh 1 98 9 s ho w i ng t hato ve r7 0% o f

s uc h i nj ur i e s ha ppe ne d when t he t ac kl e r’ s h ead w as do w n. G r e e n a r gue s t hatt he r e w as no e vi de nc e abo utt he t yp e of he l m e t , na t ur e o f

t he p l a y, or t yp e of i nj u ryi n vo l ve d i n the se o th er incid en ts, so th ere w a s n oth i n g to
e s ta b lis h th e re p o r ts ’re le v a n c e to G r e e n ’ s inju r y . Subs t ant i als i m i l ar i t y do e s no tr equi r e a n e xa c tm at c h. Si m i l art o t he
s i t uat i o n i n Jackson v. Fi res t on e Tir e & R u bber Co. , o n whi c h t h e R o d rig u ez 20 court rel i ed, a courtw ou l d im p o se an overl y “ n arrow an d u n real i st i c” vi ew of
r e le v a n c e if it p r e v e n te d S c h u ttf r o m in tr o d u c in ga n ye v id e n c e o f fo o tb a ll 21 i nj ur i e s e xc e ptt ho s e i n whi c h t he f o o t ba l lhe l m e t , na t ur e o f t he pl ay , andt yp e of i nj ury w er e i dent i c al t o t hos e i n G r ee n’ s i nj ury. Th e dat a i n t he r epo r t s w as
r el evantt o Sc hutt ’ s def ens e t hat t he m et hod of t ac kl i ng, r at hert han t he des i gn o f th e h e lm e t, w a s th e ca u s e o f G r e e n ’ s inju r y . A n d th e d a ta p o o l is s u b s ta n tia lly
s i m i l art o G r e e n’ s i nj ur y i n t hatitinvol ves t he s am e s po r tpl ay e d un de rt he
sam e or sim il a r r u l es w i t h si m i l ar equ i pm en t , res u l t i n g i n t h e sam e rare i nj ur i e s . The s e s i m i l ar i t i e s a r e s ubs t ant i ale no ugh to m ak e t he da t a r e l e va nt t o Sc hut t ’ s de fe ns e . The di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t ab us e i t s di s cret i on by al l o w i ng t hi s dat a. D G r e e n a s s e r ts th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b ya llo w in gS c h u ttto e lic it t esti m ony o n cr os s- exam i nat i on o f B r ad Th i es se n, G r ee n’ s f oo t bal lc oac h, t hat t he hi gh s c hoolc ont i nued t o us e t he Schut tD N Ahel m etaf t erG r ee n’ s i nj ury. Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

11 G r ee n ass er t s t hatt hi s st at em entw as use d “ t o pr ove n on- def ec t” an d thati tw as i rrel evan t , i m proper opini on t est i m on y, an d h i gh l y prej u d i ci al , an d theref ore sho ul d have bee n exc l uded under Feder alR ul es of E vi denc e 4 01, 402, 403, 701,
a n d 7 0 2
. A n y errorw as ha rm l ess. Th e t est i m on y at i ssue w as a si n gl e qu est i on ( “Y ou ’ re st i l l u si n g t h i s h el m et t oda y. C orrec t ?” ) an d an sw er ( “Y es. ” ) t h at t ook pl ac e i n t he e i ghtda y t r i al

. Sc hut tn ever referr e d t o t he q ue s t i o n a ga i n, a nd
ne ve ra r gue d t hatt he s c ho o l ’ s c o nt i nue d us e o f t he he l m et im pl i e d a nyt hi ng a b ou t w h eth er itw a s d efect ive

. T h e p ri m a rysou rces of ev i d en ce for bo th G ree n ’ s an d S ch u tt’ s th eo ri es of th e h elm et’ s d esign de fect velnon w ere ex p erts
w h o t e s t i f

i e d ab o ut t he m e c hani c s o f c o m pr e s s ive ne c k i nj ur i e s and o f hel m et d e s ig n . E Sc hut t ’ s e xp e r tw i t ne s s e s Jo s e ph Tor g, R o be r tC ant u, P e t e rH al s t e ad , a nd J a m e s M c E l h a n e yte s tifie d th a t G r e e n ’ s ta c k lin gte c h n iq u e co n tr ib u te d to h is i nj u ry an d t h at f

oot ballh el m et s can n otprot ectt h e neck

. G reen contend s t h ese opi n i on s w ere not based up on scien tif i c pri n ci pl es and m et h ods, an d w ere
u n rel i able, cum u l ative, an d i rrel evan t
. Th ese w i t n esses
— t h ree m edi caldoct ors ando ne b i o m e c hani c ale ngi ne e r— t e s t i f i e d a s t o t he phys i c ale f fe c t s a nd b io m e c h a n ic s o f th e m a n n e rin w h ic h G r e e n e x e c u te d th e ta c k le a n d th e ir opi n i on s r egard i n g desi gn of a h el m et t o preven t i nj u ry i n t h ese c i rcum st an ces. E a c h h a d e x te n s iv e e x p e r ie n c e s tu d y in g n e c k inju r ie s s u s ta in e d b y fo o tb a ll pl ayers. Th ei r expertkn ow l edg e w as su f f i ci en t l y est abli shed t o perm i tsuch t es t i m ony. F T h e d i stri ct cou rt d ecli n ed to ex cl u d e a b a r gra p h off ere d at tri a lby S ch u tt th a t com p a red i ts i n -ho u se t est scor es of i ts D N A m od el h elm et a n d th e A ir P o w e r h elm et, w h i ch G ree n con ten d ed w a s an altern a tive an d safer h elm et. Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

The parti es and witnesses occa sion ally r efer r edto this entity bysli ghtlydifferent 22 name s. The corre ct n ame and acro nym for thi s organi zationapp ears to b e the Nation al F eder ationof St ateHi ghS chool Associ ation s (NFHS). Seehttp ://nf hs. org. 12 G r e e n a c kno w l e dg e s t hatt he gr ap h w as pr o duc e d 3 0 da ys b e f o r e t r i aldur i ng t he
ex change of

t r i alex hibi t s. G r ee n co nt ends, how eve r , t hatSchut tr ef use d to produ ce t h e un derl yi n g da t a an d h ad ref u sed t o p rodu ce any t est i n g recor ds f or t he A i rPow erhel m etduri ng di sc ove r y. S chu t tcoun t ered i n t h e di st ri ctcourtt h at G reen’ s expertha d cha rt ed t est i n g of

t h e A i r Pow er hel m et in o th e r cases. Sch u t tadd i t i on al l y argu es on ap pea lt h at G reen w as requir ed, an d fai l ed, to ob j ectw i t h i n 14 da ys af t er receivi n g t h i s t ri alexh ibi t , pu rsuan t t o R u l e 26(a) ( 3) ( C ) of t h e F ederal R u l es of C ivi lP rocedure. W e revi ew t h e d i st ri ctcou rt ’ s ru l i n g f or an a bu se of

d i scr et i on . B ased on t he rec or d bef

or e us and the c onf

l i c t i ng evi denc e of

prej udi c e, w e c annots ay t hat th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n . G T h e d i stri ct cou rt ove rru l ed G ree n ’ s ob j ection to evid en ce th a t both N O C SA E and t he N at i onalFootbal lFeder at i on ( N FH S orFederat i on) have 22 st ated i n pu bl i shed l i t erat u re t h at f oot ballh el m et s can n otprot ectagainstneck inju r ie s . G ree n ci tes n o tran script p a ge s f or th ese all eg ed ev i d en ti a ryerro rs. In it s ap pel l ate bri ef, Sch u t tci t es a port i on of t h e di rec t e x am i n ati on t est i m on y of A rt em i o O n t iveros, an a ssi st an tcoach of G reen’ s f oot ballt eam . Sch u t tref erred t o a nd subs equent l y adm i t t ed t he N FH S rul ebo ok t hatgo ver ned t he s c r i m m age gam e. G r ee n obj ec t ed o n t he bas i s of rel evanc e (w i t h no f

urt herdet ai l) and w as o ve r r u l e d

. Ho we v e r , Gr e e n n o w c o n t e n d s o n a p p e a l t h a t t h e NOCSA E and N F H S evi den ce had no sci en t i f i c basi s and w as hea rsay. G reen’ s obj ect i on based
o n re le v a n c e d id n o t p r e s e r v e th e s e co n te n tio n s fo ra p p e a l. Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

13 V G reen cha l l en ges severalrul i n gs of t h e di st ri ctcourtexcl u di n g evi den ce he o f fe r e d. A T h e di st ri ctcourtexcl u ded a 197 3 versi on of N O C S A E ’ s s t an da rds. A c c ord i n g to th e d ocu m en t’ s p rea m b l e, N O C S A E sou gh t t o d ev elop a footb a l lhel m et

- t es ts t andard t hatw oul d “ i m pro ve upon t he pr ot ec t i on af f or ded by h el m et s to prevent bot h hea d an d n eck i nj u ri es. ” Sch u t tm oved t h e di st ri ctcourt t o exc l ude t hi s evi denc e underFeder alR ul e o f E vi denc e 4 03, ar gui ng t hati tw as l i kely t o conf

u se t h e j u ry si n ce t h e l an gu age at i ssue provi des on l y an aspi rat i on andi s no ta s c i e nt i f i c f i ndi ng. Sc hut tf

ur t he rc o nt e nde d t hatm o r e r e c e nt l i t e r at ur e , a s w e l la s N O CSA E’ s c ur r e nts t and ar d, rej e c t s t hi s as pi r at i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d Sc hut t ’ s m o t i o n. G ive n t he do c um e nt ’ s a s pi r at i o nalt o ne anda ge , t he m o r e r e c e ntm e di c all i t e r at ur e , a nd NO CSA E’ s c hang e i n po s i t i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no ta bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n. B T h e d istr i ctcourtexcl u ded a desi gn saf et y m em oran du m t h at had been pre par ed f

orB i ke Athl et i c C om pany i n 1985. Th e do c um entc ont ai ns a l i stof 14 b r o a d g u id e lin e s fo rd e s ig n in gs a fe a th le tic e q u ip m e n t, s u c h a s “e x c e e d a ll
s t and ar ds ” a nd “ c o ns i de rs af e t y t hr o ugh o utt he de s i gn. ” Al t ho ugh t he do c um e nt
w as not prepared f

or Schu t t , Sch u t t ’ s di rect or of res earch f

or t h e D N Ahel m et
w as an e m pl o ye e at Bi ke At hl e t i c Com pa ny i n 19 85 and r e c e ived t he
m em oran du m t h ere. G reen argued t h at t h e docu m en t pu t t h i s person on noti ce of cert ai n s af

e t y r e qui r e m e nt s f

o rhe l m e tde s i gn. Sc hut tc o nt e nde d t hatt he do c um e ntw as i r r e l e va nta nd m o ve d t he c o ur tt o e xc l ude i tund e rRul e 4 02
. The di st ri ct cou rtgran t ed S chu t t ’ s m ot i on . “ In cases i n vol vi n g st ri ctl i abil i t y f or def ec t ive des i gn, l i abi l i t y i s deter m i ned by t he pr oduc t ’ s def ec t ive Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

Boa tlan d of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey , 6 0 9S .W .2 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 9(T ex . 1 9 8 0). 23
14 cond i t i on . . . . ” G reen’ s c au se of act i on w as based on st rict li a b il ity f or 23 d efective de sign

. A l th ou gh the do cu m en t at i ssu e m a y h a ve sh ow n “no ti ce” to S ch u tt of f

ore see a b l e risks , as G ree n arg u es, i t do es n ot ten d to estab l i sh tha t a de fe c te xi s t e d. The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no ta bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n. C G reen al so c l ai m s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n pr e v e n ti n g h i m f rom adm i t t i ng a ni ne- page publ i she d paperon hel m ets afet y. The ar t i c l e, w hi c h w as p u b l i sh ed i n a scien ti fi c j ou rn a li n 19 7 8 , e xp l a i n s th e m eth od ology an d resu l ts of a hel m et

- sa fet y t es t
. I t c onc l udes t hat hel m et s c an r educ e t he com pre ss ive f orce t o t h e cervi calspi n e , a n d th at ai r- f i l l ed h el m et s provi de bett er neck pro t ec t i on t han padded hel m et s. G r ee n’ s expe r tdes c r ibed t he paperi n gr eat de t ai l

. H e e xp l ai ne d ho w t he hel m e t

- s af e t y t e s tw as co nduc t e d a nd c o nve ye d t he pa per’ s c on cl u si on s. H e al so quoted dir ect l y f ro m th e a rti cl e. W h en G reen at t em pt ed t o a dm i tt he paperi nt o evi denc e, Schut t obj ec t ed t hatt he ar t i c l e w as i r r e l e van t b e c aus e i tw as ne ar l y 30 y e ar s o l d, a nd t hati tw as he ar s ay . The j udg e s us t ai ne d t he s e o bj e c t i o ns . Eve n i f t he di s t r i c t c o ur te r r e d i n e xc l udi ng t he art i cl e, w h i ch w e do n otres ol ve, t h e err or di d n otha rm G reen. G reen’ s expert t e s t i f i e d e xt e ns ive l y ab o utt he a r t i c l e a nd c o nve ye d t o the j u ry a l lhe l pf ula nd
r e le v a n t in fo r m a tio n co n ta in e d in it. D G reen received m edi cal bi l l s t ot al i n g $83 1, 254
. 74, bu tM edi cai d an d other i n suran ce provi ders set t l ed th e b il ls f or $448 , 154
. 63. Th e di st ri ctcourtrul ed bef or e t r i alt hatG r ee n co ul d onl y s ee k re c ove r y f ort he $448, 154. 63 t hatw as act u al l y pa i d. T h e di st ri ctcourtpreven t ed G reen f rom presenti n g evi den ce on t h e rem ai n der of t h e am ou n t i n i t i al l y bi l l ed. G reen c l ai m s t h at t h i s w as err or. G r e e n ’s c o m p la in t r e la te s o n lyto d a m a g e s ; b e c a u s e th e ju r yfa ile d to fin d in Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

See F ED . R. APP . P. 2 8 (a). 24 See Pelt v. U.S. Bank T rustNat ’l Ass’

n , 35 9 F .3d 7 64, 766 -67 (5thC ir. 2 004) (quotin g 25 Joh nsonv. Sawyer , 1 2 0F .3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 5 (5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 7) (intern al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed))

.

Id

. 26 15 G reen’ s fav o ro n a ny t he o r y o f l i ab i l i t y, a nd we ar e no tdi s t ur bi ng anyo f t he l i ab i l i t y de t e r m i nat i o ns , w e do no tc o ns i de rt hi s c o nt e nt i o n. E In o n e s e n te n c e , G r e e n a s s e r ts th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in gh is
m o tio n to s tr ik e a b r ie f th a t S c h u ttfile d p r io rto tr ia l. G r e e n h a s w a iv e d th is
a r g u m e n t b yin a d e q u a te lyb r ie f i n git. B u t e v e n if G r e e n h a d a d e q u a te ly

24 bri efed thi s a rg u m en t , perm i t t i n g t h e f i l i n g of t h i s pret ri albri ef

di d n ot pr ej udi c e G r e e n. VI G reen cha l l en ges the cha rge a n d i n st ructi on s to t h e j u ry. H e m u stshow t h at t h e “ cha rge as a w h ol e creat es sub st an t i al an d i n eradi cabl e dou bt w h et h er t he j ur y has b e e n pr o pe r l y gui de d i n i t s de l ibe r at i o ns . ” I f t he i ns t r uc t i o ns 25 contai n ed an err or, w e st i l lw i l lnot r everse i f t h e rec ord, ta ken as a w h ol e, ref l ect s t h at t h e i n st ructi on coul d n otha ve cha n ged t h e case’ s outc om e. 26 A O n app eal , G reen contend s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt“ i m pr o perl y com m i n gl ed
n egl i gen ce pri n ci pl es w i t h st ri ct l i abil i t y desi gn defectpri n ci pl es” an d “adop t ed
m ore s t ri n gen t st an da rds t h an t h ose r equ i red f or s t ri ctl i abil i t y cl ai m s un der T e x a s l a w. ” G r e e n ’ s b r i e f c o n t a i n s n o t h i n gmo r e t h a n t h e s e t wo s t a t e me n t s . H e c i t e s no a ut ho r i t i e s , no rdo e s he di s c us s t he c har ge. Gre e n ha s w aive d a ny ar gum entby fai l i ng t o b r i ef i tadeq uat ely. H e a d d i ti on a l l y co n ten d s th a t i t w a s erro r to su b m i t co m p a ra tive fa u l t t o t he j ur y andt o re f

us e t o i ns t r uc tt he j ur y t hatG r e e n had no dut y t o di s c o ve rt he Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 07- 10208

16 defec t ive cond i t i on of t h e hel m et
. H ere agai n , G reen ci t es to n o a u t h ori t i es ot h er th a n the T ex a s P a ttern Ju ryC h a rg e. T h i s i s i n su ff i ci en t. B S chu t ti n i t i al l y i n t en ded t o contend at t ri al t h at G reen ass u m ed the ri sk of hi s i nj u ry. G reen argu es that the court err ed i n a l l ow i n g S chu t tto i n t rodu ce ev i d en ce re l a ted to t h i s d efen se a n d the n fa i l i n g to ins tru ct t h e j u ryn ot to
c ons i dert his evi denc e a f t erSchut tabandoned i t s def ens e dur i ng t he c harge confer en ce. G reen ci t es no case l aw or ot h er authori t i es, an d thi s poi n tha s not be e n a de qua t e l y pr e s e nt e d. * * * F or th e foreg oin g rea son s, w e A F F IR M the j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt. Case: 07-10208 Document: 00511053557 Page: 16 Date Filed: 03/16/2010