In Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox, 59 A.3d 1267 (D.C. 2013) (No. 11-cv-0445), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to admit plaintiff’s expert testimony that defendant’s facemask and throat guard were designed defectively and caused the plaintiff, a baseball umpire, injury. Defendant’s facemask adopted a new design with a throat guard that angled forward. Defendant’s biomechanical engineer expert testified that a foul tip struck the bottom of the throat guard, and the angle of the throat guard transmitted the energy up into the jaw and forced the jaw up into the ear, causing permanent hearing loss. The court rejected the argument that plaintiff’s expert had to conduct his own tests as the expert had relied up published data provided by other experts in the field. The court also rejected the argument that plaintiff had assumed the risk, holding that the relevant risk was the risk presented by this design, rather than knowledge of the general risk associated with serving as an umpire. It concluded that plaintiff had to have greater knowledge of the specific risks presented by this design, and thus affirmed the jury verdict for plaintiff.