P was injured when he lost control of his motorcycle after striking debris in the road. P was wearing a helmet manufactured by D. P was incapacitated by his injuries, and his natural father and guardian brought this action. P sued D alleging that the helmet was defectively designed and manufactured and that D failed to warn that the helmet would not afford any significant protection from certain reasonably foreseeable impacts. P offered deposition testimony from an expert that not motorcycle helmet provides assurance of protection from facial or brain injury at speeds of 30-45 mph and that the average purchaser would not know these facts. A summary judgment was given D and P appealed but only on the failure to warn issue. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.