★ The Sports Examiner: Chronicling the key competitive, economic and political forces shaping elite sport and the Olympic Movement.★
★ To get the daily Sports Examiner Recap by e-mail: sign up here! ★
≡ STEINER vs. PUMA ≡
“This is a product liability action seeking recovery for substantial personal injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff after Plaintiff was seriously injured by products designed, engineered, tested, developed, manufactured, advertised, marketed, promoted, imported, sold and distributed by Defendants.”
That’s the opening of a 35-page complaint filed by one-time U.S. sprint star Abby Steiner in Massachusetts Superior Court last Friday (24th) against Puma and Mercedes Benz Grans Prix Limited, known as the MercedesAMG Petronas FI Team.
At the end, the complaint asks for:
“As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ negligence and wrongful misconduct as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries and damages including past, present, and future pain and suffering, including the inability to compete in track and field at the national and Olympic levels. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendants for these injuries in an amount which shall be proven at trial.”
Steiner was one of the bright stars of 2022, winning the NCAA 200 m title while at Kentucky in 2022 and then taking the USATF national 200 m gold. She finished fifth in the 2022 World Championships women’s 200 m and won relay golds in the 4×100 and 4×400 m relays. She had an unlimited future ahead of her.
But after lifetime bests of 10.90 and 21.77 in 2022 – wearing Nike spikes – her performances dropped to 11.19/22.07 in 2023 and 11.05/22.03 in 2024. She finished fifth at the 2024 Olympic Trials in the women’s 200 and did not make the Paris team. That was her last competitive race.
She signed a major endorsement deal with Puma after her 2022 triumphs, reportedly in the $2 million range. But it did not work out.
Now living in South Carolina, Steiner’s Boston attorneys filed suit against Puma in its U.S. headquarters state of Massachusetts and recited a list of complaints about their products. The Mercedes F1 team was included as it was apparently involved in the designs of shoes that Steiner claim injured her. Specifically:
● “Representations and warranties like those made by the PUMA DEFENDANTS and MERCEDES-BENZ GRAND PRIX LTD. mislead consumers, including Plaintiff, into believing the PUMA SHOES were adequately and appropriately testing and reasonably safe for their normal, intended use when in reality, they are unsafe, unreasonably dangerous, defective and capable of causing injury and harms to consumers during ordinary, anticipated and foreseeable uses.”
● “Relying upon representations and warranties made bythe PUMA DEFENDANTS and MERCEDES-BENZ GRAND PRIX LTD,, including those set forth herein and others, Plaintiff decided to wear the PUMA SHOES for training and in competitions with the reasonable expectation that they were properly designed, developed, tested, manufactured, marketed, promoted, advertised, sold and distributed free from defects of any kind, and that they were safe for their intended, foreseeable use during training and competitions.”
● “Despite this and in disregard of their obligations, the PUMA DEFENDANTS and MERCEDES-BENZ GRAND PRIX LTD. were aware that the PUMA SHOES had defects that made them unsafe, unreasonably dangerous, defective and capable of causing injury and harm to consumers during ordinary, anticipated an foreseeable uses.”
The complaint states that Steiner became injured, but only now understood the cause:
● “As a direct and proximate cause of her use of the PUMA SHOES for training and in competitions, Plaintiff developed severe and permanent injuries resulting in multiple surgeries, rehabilitations and recovery.”
● “As a direct and proximate caus of the severe and permanent injuries the PUMA SHOES caused Plaintiff, she is unable to run competitively, including at the professional and Olympic level.”
● “The proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries was the defective, unsafe and negligent design, development, testing, manufacture, assémbly, sale and distribution of the PUMA SHOES and the inadequate, deficient and misleading safety, testing and performance statements, claims, warranties and representations associated with the PUMA SHOES, which, during reasonably anticipated use, present and unreasonable and unacceptably high risk of injury.”
And:
“Plaintiff brings this Complaint having only recently discovered the offending instrumentality that caused her injuries. Prior to this, the wrongful conduct and potential role played by PUMA SHOE designs, as well as their use of CFP [carbon fiber plate] and/or NF [nitrofoam] technology were not apparent, evident or objectively ascertainable by Plaintiff.
“Prior to this, Plaintiff did not know, nor could or should she have reasonably known, that she had been harmed or may have been harmed by Defendants’ conduct, and therefore the discovery rule applies.”
The next step will be a reply by Puma and Mercedes Benz Grand Prix, due in the Massachusetts Superior Court by 24 August; the case is Steiner vs. Puma North America, Inc et al, case no. 2681CV01095.
Observed: The complaint states that at 26, Steiner’s career is over. That is the saddest part of the matter, to see such a promising star lose out to injury, in her case, allegedly due to her sponsor’s shoes.
¶
★ Receive our exclusive, weekday TSX Recap by e-mail by clicking here.
★ Sign up a friend to receive the TSX Recap by clicking here.
★ Please consider a donation here to keep this site going.
For our updated, 681-event International Sports Calendar for 2026 and beyond, by date and by sport, click here!
