English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Liability for defective athletic equipment can be difficult to prove.1 In the fast-paced environment of contact sports, establishing the element of causation can be insuperable. For example, in Testerman v. Riddell, where a football player alleged that the manufacturer’s representative fitted him with undersized shoulder pads and thus caused him serious injury during a scrimmage, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s case failed for lack of definitive proof of causation.2 The plaintiff’s expert failed to establish whether or not the injury resulted from the opponent’s blow or contact with the ground, whether or not the injured area was covered by the pad at the moment of impact, and whether or not larger pads would have precluded the injury in the circumstances.3 Assuming causation can be established, sports equipment manufacturers may be held liable for negligence,4 breach of warranties,5 and defective prod-

Assumption of Risk in NFL Concussion Litigation: The Offhand Empiricism of the Courtroom