Question $26$

$2$ pts

The text discusses a case involving a professional baseball league umpire who was injured while wearing a Wilson Sporting Goods mask. The plaintiff alleged the throat guard was defectively designed and he was injured when a ball bounced against his mask and the throat guard's design did not protect him properly. Which of the below is correct about this case?

The court ruled for Wilson Sporting Goods since the umpire had voluntarily agreed to try out the newly designed mask and he was a knowledgeable user of the product.

The court dismissed the case since baseball umpires incur a known risk when they stand behind a catcher and balls are coming at them at $100$ mph $.$

None of the other answers are correct.

The court ruled that the man was aware of problems with the mask from earlier episodes of balls striking him $($the mask$)$ and, thus, under a comparative fault argument $/$ defense, he was more at fault than the manufacturer for his own injury.