The Nike Warning Label Case Was Dismissed, But . . . .
by: Ryan • October 1, 2014 • no comments
You may have heard about the case where a defendant, having been convicted for kicking a non-paying John with Air Jordans, sued Nike for failing to warn its customers that Air Jordans were a dangerous weapon. The case was dismissed this week.
But in one particular, the defendant had a point. He was convicted of Assault II for using a dangerous weapon -- the aforementioned Air Jordans. At the time the case was tried, there was no appellate opinion on whether the defendant had to know that a weapon was in fact a dangerous weapon. (Under Oregon law, a dangerous weapon is a weapon that is likely to cause serious physical injury in the manner in which it is used. In other words, anything can be a dangerous weapon, for example a pillow used to smother someone would be; a pillow used to hit someone would not.)
As you can guess, the point where an object crosses from a weapon to a dangerous weapon can be quite subtle, especially in a case where the weapon didn't actually cause a serious physical injury.
Since then, the Court of Appeals has issued an opinion -- consistent with recent mental state analysis from cases like St v Wier -- holding that a defendant did have to know that the object was a dangerous weapon in the way it was used. For a number of reasons -- most of them related to the fact that the defendant didn't have a lawyer at his trial -- this case probably won't help the defendant on his current appeal.
There are still a number of open questions related to the nexus between mental state and elements. Not enough lawyers are raising them, in my opinion, which is why so many open questions exist. But they can make a real difference in the right case.
