Now this is a bizarre potential tort case out of Britain. A 26-year-old woman’s gel breast implant exploded when hit by a paintball traveling at 190mph. The question is whether Paintzone Park near Croydon, or the paintball gun manufacturers, should be liable under a strict liability or negligence theory.
There does not appear to be a lawsuit in the works, but the case presents a novel question.
The woman initially thought she had a bad bruise but her doctor’s later informed her of the rupture.
UKPaintball runs the Paintzone Paintball Park near Croydon, South London and its spokesperson said “Part of the fun of paintball is that it hurts a bit when you get shot but in all the years we’ve been going we’ve never seen an incident like this.” The spokesperson added that women with implants will be given extra padding in the future.
I have occasionally played — and enjoyed — paintball and I can attest to the bruises left by the games. I have always been surprised by the also total lack of protection beyond headgear. It is a business clearly built around a robust view of assumption of the risk.
Regardless of whether the liability theory is negligence or strict liability, assumption of the risk remains a common defense. As the company notes, part of the fun of paintball is that it mimics combat. Yet, few people would assume that internal organs or prosthetics or implants could be affected — also indicated by the company itself. The question is how much of an impact people expect — particularly if this is their first time. I was very surprised how much these things hurt. On two occasions, the balls broke my skin and caused bleeding. I still enjoyed the games and returned, but it was a surprise. New players rely on the facility to warn them of the risks, though this seems an exceptionally rare injury.
There are obviously plenty of sports and recreations where there are obvious dangers for injury ranging from mechanical bulls to bungee jumping to football.
One of the oldest English cases on sports liability is still taught in most American torts classes: Stone v. Bolton, 1 K.B. 201 (C.A. 1950). In this case, Stone was hit on the head by a cricket ball that flew an unusual (but not unheard of distance) into her backyard. She used in both nuisance and negligence over the lack of a sufficiently high wall to protect her and other citizens. The lower court ruled for the defendant — and of course the national sport of cricket. However, the appellate court found a basis for negligence given the prior hits at that distance.
Of course, there could be a claim that this is an ultrahazardous activity warranting strict liability — though it does not appear that serious injuries are common. Strict liability is more promising against the manufacturer of the paintball gun for a device that fires at too high a velocity. However, the company has a good argument that individuals can wear as much or as little protection as they want. In that sense, the case reminds me of Linegar v. Armour of America, 909 F.2d 1150(10th Cir. 1990) where an officer was shot a bulletproof vest in an area under the arm without protection. However, the court found that the risk of this design was obvious and that consumers can pick the degree of protection that they want from such vests.
The most promising claim remains against the paintball facility and whether it has a duty to warn and make available protection for individuals — particularly new players.
Source: Sun
Jonathan Turley
Maybe she was suffering from boob-bonic plague !
Rafflaw,
Working in an amusement park, we received training on how to delicately point out that pregnant women shouldn’t ride on the rides.
Gyges,
Which unlucky employee gets to ask the question of the lady customers, which ones need extra padding??
Well Gyges,
I suppose you could offer to run interference….Right?
“The spokesperson added that women with implants will be given extra padding in the future.”
How exactly do they plan on implementing that one?
I mean “regulate the velocity” on the paint ball gun itself …
Couldn’t they also regulate the velocity to perhaps low, medium, and high?
That would allow new users to use low at first, then elevate the power as they grew more adept at it.
Aren’t you supposed to wear a cup to protect your jewels? At a grand apiece, I’d classify these appurtenances as worthy of more covering than she gave them. Did she either forgot she had them or wouldn’t admit their existence?
NoWay, I have heard boob jobs called a lot of things, but never “aftermarket accessories.”
AY,
I think you may have come across a new legal term!
I think the woman assumed the risk of being injured since she was the only one (that we know of) who knew about her implants. Now, if the facts show that whomever fired the paintball at her, knew of the implants and was purposely aiming at her breasts, then we have a different case!
Some fault could lie with the paintball itself (various companies manufacture the paintballs used in the gun). Temperature can have a profound effect on the paintballs. If the paintballs were refrigerated or the temperature was cold, the paintballs would be harder than intended by the manufacturer.
Maybe Paintzone should put up a sign like they have at my local car wash.
Not responsible for damage to aftermarket accessories.
That was for you, AY…
🙂
AN,
Only in her mind….Only in her mind…
And then there’s the possibility that the implant had a structural defect…
I think the title should be changed to “Assumption of the Breasts”….. Improper touching could cause to explode…
Nal, informed consent covers a lot of things, but I doubt this is on the list of things not to do. Some things you have to hope the patient is smart enough to figure out.
Could the doctor be sued for not warning her about certain activities that would cause a rupture?