Ryan Mundy considering legal action against Schutt after cut to head


Bears safety Ryan Mundy suffered a cut to his head that required stitches during the team’s preseason game against the Seahawks and he’s considering legal action against the helmet manufacturer as a result.

Mundy was wearing a Schutt helmet when he collided with Seahawks fullback Derrick Coleman and says a sharp edge inside the helmet caused a cut that led to 16 stitches. Mundy said he has to “do some diligence about what action” he can take against the company, which he says came to the Bears to fix the issue on other helmets in the wake of Mundy’s injury.

“Their guy came in a few days ago and put a protective pad inside the helmet of the other guys that are wearing Schutt helmets to cover up the edge that was kind of sharp,” Mundy said, via the Chicago Tribune. “I’ve never seen anything like this ever. This can’t happen. It’s not supposed to work out like that at all.”

We’ll leave discussions on legal action to those with law degrees, but something does seem off if a helmet designed to protect its wearer contributes to his injury instead.

Mundy hasn’t worn a helmet since suffering the injury, but is expected back on the field this week wearing a Riddell helmet.

20 responses to “Ryan Mundy considering legal action against Schutt after cut to head

  1. This is America…

    * Land of the lawyer home of the lawsuit
    * Where people are either lawyers, litigants or plaintiffs
    * Where justice is determined by which side has the most money (lawyers)
    * Where product manufacturers hate to sell products
    * Where at least 10% of all product costs are driven by legal costs

  2. Not exactly the greatest advertisement for that company huh? And everyone trashes attorneys — till they need one . . . . . .

  3. In the 1960s a big three car manufacturer determined that a $2.2o check valve could have been installed on their vehicles to prevent people from dying in fuel fed fires after collisions that caused gas to escape from the gas tank. This manufacturer made the analysis that the cost would be better saved because the company would end up paying less to the families that burned to death than trying to make the cars safer and save lives. It took a lawsuit to expose this profit-driven-money-over-lives mentality.

    Lawsuits work against manufacturers like this because they would rather save the money on the extra helmet pad than make the helmet safer – until they get caught. Google “Ivey Memo” for the facts.

  4. Land of America.

    The best country in the world.

    Built by lawyers with vision.

    But yet we are remembered for a hot cup of coffee at McDonald’s.

    Your welcome

  5. Wait he changed his helmet to a Riddell. I thought the reason we can’t do throwback Jersey had somehting to do with the League not wanting the players changing helmets?

  6. Riddell has been the gold standard of football helmets for decades. Never heard of Schutt before so this doesn’t surprise me. It doesn’t always hurt to go with what you know.

  7. “Running full speed into another person may have also contributed.”

    Uh, which is the whole point of wearing a helmet. Portecting yourself from injury. If your product doesn’t work, you don’t get to blame the very thing your product was invented to protect you from.

    Or in other words, if you have an accident in your car and your airbag deploys with a razor blade attached, which slices your eye out, the car company doesn’t get to say, “Well don’t forget, he did run into a tree.”

  8. What a joke. This case is worth about $500. He’s a football player. He doesn’t have any permanent injury. Is he going to sue the next player that bruises him? Or Gatorade if he gets some on his jersey? I would cut him just for being a pansy.

  9. Not a sharp object. A sharp edge. It’s probably part of the contour of the helmet and something he never expected to come in contact with. He’s a football player, not an engineer.

  10. Everybody jumps to threaten lawsuits until they talk to a lawyer. The strength of your claim makes little difference. Lawyers want clients that have suffered expensive or long lasting damages and defendants with deep pockets. Otherwise you have to pay, up front, for their services. My guess is that a competent lawyer for this case would request an upfront payment of at least $50k to even start doing anything. All of a sudden, lawsuits don’t seem like such a good idea.

  11. canetic says: Aug 29, 2014 12:18 PM

    What a joke. This case is worth about $500. He’s a football player. He doesn’t have any permanent injury. Is he going to sue the next player that bruises him? Or Gatorade if he gets some on his jersey? I would cut him just for being a pansy.


    Tell that minor injury story to the guy in Tampa who got a staph infection (MERSA) that wouldn’t allow him to heal and then ended his career. Not a starter, but you can understand how such an injury to your head that won’t allow you to play until it fully heals can be very serious and very costly.

  12. Whether he has a Settlement or not; Schutt suffers either way from the bad PR and rightfully so!

    As for the comments about how “everyone hates Lawyers until they need one”… well, we actually hate them even more at those times! Like Stock Brokers they designed a system that precludes the average intelligent human from assisting themselves, but with one major advantage. Win or Lose-they get paid either way!

  13. I’ll bet to a man, everybody against him suing, don’t mind Boehner suing the president.

    You can thank liberals for any product safety you have. All conservatives think about is profit.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!