View Report

(Printable PDF)
Cascade Pro 7 Lacrosse Helmet
Sports and Recreation
Field & Court Sports
Lacrosse (Activity, Apparel or Equipment) (1215)
Cascade Sports - Sport Helmets Inc.    
Pro 7 Helmet
 
 
12/17/2010
My son [REDACTED], age 17, suffered a near fatal skull fracture and arterial bleed after getting struck on the left side of the head with a lacrosse ball. Although he was wearing a new Cascade Pro 7 helmet, the helmet failed to protect him.
3/11/2011
Place of Recreation or Sports 
Injury→Injury, Hospital Admission
My Parent
Male
17 years
Yes
No
N/A
Although I personally didn't attempt to contact the company, [REDACTED] Coach ([REDACTED]) and [REDACTED] (from US Youth Sports Association) tried to contact the company. They showed no sign of concern nor responsibility.
Yes
N/A
Comment from Cascade Sports - Sport Helmets Inc. 9/30/2011
September 29, 2011

U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

Re: Manufacturer’s Comment to Consumer
Report 20110908-CDOZA-2147475536

Sport Helmets, Inc. t/d/b/a Cascade (“Cascade”) is a manufacturer of lacrosse helmets, including the Pro-7 model that is the subject of proposed report 20110908-CDOZA-2147475536 submitted on September 8, 2011 and received by a Company representative on September 15, 2011.

The report does not describe any problem with the helmet. It does not provide any information regarding retailer, sales transaction, buyer, seller or date of manufacture. The purchase date is listed December 17, 2010. Cascade has not received sufficient information to trace back the model in question. Nonetheless, Cascade maintains product performance information and testing for Pro-7 models. Cascade has not received formally or anecdotally any information regarding a player sustaining the injuries described in the report while wearing a Pro-7 model.

Regarding the incident described in the report, Cascade’s Customer Service line received a telephone call from [REDACTED]on or about March 15, 2010 reporting on a highly unusual injury sustained by a player during practice. [REDACTED], [REDACTED], called [REDACTED] back within 5 minutes to discuss the details. The player stepped into a shot being fired at unusually close range. [REDACTED], the coach, observed the shot and estimated that the ball speed ([REDACTED ]lacrosse ball) was 85-90 mph when it impacted the player. The player, apparently sensing the impact, according to his coach flinched and turned away from the line of the shot exposing his left temple. Impact was described as at the chin strap point in the left temple area. [REDACTED] recounted that he stopped practice and immediately began a concussion assessment. The coach removed the player to the sidelines and the club administrator took over the management of the incident. The player’s parents were engaged, a decision to transport the player to the hospital was made and the player’s condition deteriorated. [REDACTED] described surgery, recovery and shared a positive prognosis and “remarkable recovery.”

[REDACTED] further acknowledged the call by emailing [REDACTED] on March 15, 2011. Cascade (1) thanked [REDACTED] for contacting the Company; (2) asked for more information about the injury; (3) asked for an opportunity to see the helmet; (4) explained it was very important to the Company; and (5) asked to reach out to the parents and provided his office, cell and home phone numbers.

Two days later [REDACTED] replied by email. [REDACTED] did not supply contact information for the family. Instead, [REDACTED] confirmed that he passed on [REDACTED] email, work, cell and home phone numbers to the family. [REDACTED] told [REDACTED] that two other players suffered concussions, but “I don’t believe it has anything to do with the helmets.” [REDACTED] attributed a more recent focus on head injury and early intervention as factors producing an increase in the number of concussion diagnoses.

At this juncture, the Company had no information that its product failed or otherwise contributed to the injury of the player. The Company has a reputation for soliciting information from the lacrosse community regarding collisions and injuries. Between the dates of March 17, 2011 until September 15, 2011, the Company was never contacted by anyone in regard the incident described in Report 20110908-CDOZA-2147475536. The Company disputes the assertion that it was not responsive.

[REDACTED] remarked in a telephone call on September 15, 2011 that he was shocked that the President of the Company returned his call within five minutes and then moments later emailed contact information for the family back in March, 2011. See [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] recalls that he instantly forwarded the email with [REDACTED] contact information to submitter.

[REDACTED] maintains confidence in the Pro-7 model. His program recently ordered 20 more Pro-7 helmets, including one for the injured player who reportedly intends to return to the team in the Spring of 2012. [REDACTED] received a call from submitter asking about helmet models for her younger son, also a lacrosse player. [REDACTED] recommended the Pro-7. The younger brother of the injured player apparently wore the Pro-7 for the remainder of the 2011 spring lacrosse season. [REDACTED] met with submitter and [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] praised the honeycomb design of the Seven Technology used in the Pro-7 helmet model. The Company contacted [REDACTED] to verify its understanding of the prior exchange in making this response.

Clearly, the injuries involved go beyond concussion. However, [REDACTED] never described the helmet or its performance as a cause of the player’s injuries. The Coach did not describe any condition or characteristic of the Pro-7 as suspect. He did not describe any malfunction.

The Company did not receive a reply from the family. No one contacted the Company regarding the incident. Since the incident, the Company has received no complaints regarding the model Pro-7 performance or of any similar incidents. The family has been interviewed. A television interview attached hereto does not refer to the helmet as a contributing cause. See, infra.

Lacrosse is a dangerous contact sport. The dangers of the game are listed in the Safety Booklet is attached to each Pro-7 helmet. The Safety Booklet features messages to players, coaches and parents. The Safety Booklet describes the injury suffered by this player as a risk of the game. The gravity of the risk of serious bodily injury is described candidly and graphically. The Company actively solicits the help of coaches and parents to communicate the risks of serious injury to players. As the Company’s warnings state, the helmet cannot protect against all injuries encountered during lacrosse play.

The Company subscribes to aggressive research and development to uncover and use designs and materials that promote protection. The Pro-7 helmet contains the Company’s “Seven” technology. The helmet exceeds NOCSAE standards for impact testing. Internal quality control records and testing demonstrate consistent performance at and above requisite standards.

The report alleges that [REDACTED] contacted the Company regarding the incident. The Company disputes this assertion. During 2011, [REDACTED] contacted the Company by email regularly (over 10 times) with inquiries regarding the availability of the Seven technology for application in protective headgear for the military. Attached below is a chart showing the dates and times of each email exchange between [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] of Cascade regarding the Company’s Seven technology:

Date Time From To
2/10/2011 1:34 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/10/2011 2:42 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/10/2011 6:16 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/10/2011 7:21 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/11/2011 6:58 AM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/11/2011 8:43 AM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/11/2011 12:27 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/11/2011 12:43 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/11/2011 2:52 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/13/2011 2:05 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/16/2011 9:54 AM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/16/2011 9:35 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/17/2011 10:14 AM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
2/24/2011 11:55 AM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
3/2/2011 11:36 AM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
3/17/2011 10:15 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
4/1/2011 5:24 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
4/21/2011 2:54 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
4/21/2011 7:00 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
4/22/2011 1:38 PM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
5/11/2011 9:33 AM [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] has never mentioned the reported incident or any concern regarding the design or performance of the Pro-7 lacrosse helmet. To the contrary, [REDACTED] has sought to perpetuate the application of the Seven Technology impact attenuation system in his endeavors. Specifically, [REDACTED] is seeking a commercial relationship to sell padding made with Seven technology. If [REDACTED] had any concern, he would likely have made it known to the Company. Since the accident, [REDACTED] has sought to expand his relationship with the Company to purchase technology in use at this accident.

The Company contends that the report contains material inaccuracies. The submitter, parent of the injured player, admits she has never contacted the Company. She admits that she has the helmet which bears the Company’s telephone number. The submitter admits that the contact points to the Company were [REDACTED]. Submitter reports that both attempted to contact the Company. Submitter’s statement that “the company showed no sign of concern nor responsibility” is contradicted by the email exchanges between [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] and also [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. The Company acted immediately and expressed concern. The family elected not to contact the Company and declined to allow an inspection of the helmet. None of the information supplied by [REDACTED] implicated the helmet in question nor did it ask the Company to take any action or accept responsibility.

The Company rejects that there is any factual basis to conclude it caused or contributed to this accident. Significant investigation is necessary before any conclusion can be reached, beginning with an examination of the helmet and biomechanical survey of the impact forces. The submitter has not made any investigation or performed testing to support any claim against the Pro-7 helmet.

The Company deeply respects the mission of the CPSC and shares the goal of protecting consumers. The Company regrets that the player suffered an injury. As parents of players, the officers of the Company expressed concern regarding the serious risks of the game of lacrosse.

File NameDescription
095.JPG Nathan Craniotemy Post Surgery
099.JPG Cascade Pro 7 helmet after injury
101.JPG Another helmet photo
106_redact.jpg  
right after surgery_redact.jpg  

CPSC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database on SaferProducts.gov, particularly with respect to information submitted by people outside of CPSC.