Lighters: Child’s play or liability?
According to the U.S. Fire Administration, over 35,000 fires are set by children each year and 8,000 of those fires are set in homes (“Curious Kids”, 2006). Fires can be very attractive and many children are fascinated by it. Oftentimes children are exposed to some type of fire, from a lit candle on a birthday cake to campfires and fireplaces, or even fireworks. Many children become curious of this phenomenon and almost always, they will attempt to start a fire. Because lighters and matches are an attractive item for children to play with, parents should take extra caution when potentially dangerous items are in the home. For that reason, fire starting tools such as lighters and matches should be kept hidden or stored in secured areas away from children. The following court case stemmed from a child’s curiosity in playing with a utility lighter.
On the night of March 31, 1998, Ms. Susan Calles returned from the video store to find her home surrounded by an emergency response team. Upon arrival, she was informed by fire investigators that her home had been set on fire. She later learned that while she was out with her daughter Victoria to get videos for Amanda, Jenna had started a fire using a utility lighter. Ms. Calles, along with her four daughters, Amanda (age 11), Victoria (age 5), and twins, Jenna and Jillian (ages 3) share a home in Illinois. Before Ms. Calles left her home earlier that night, she had put the twins to bed while Amanda watched TV. During the time period that she was out, Jenna got a hold of the utility lighter, played with it and while playing, she accidently turned on the switch and ignited a fire. With the help of the fire department, the children were able to evacuate from the home on time without any noticeable serious injuries. But unfortunately, the heavy smoke from the incident was so severe that Jillian required hospitalization. Sadly, three weeks later, Jillian passed away from smoke inhalation.
Ms. Calles as administrator for daughter Jillian’s estate filed a product liability action against Scripto-Tokai Corporation, the designer and manufacturer of Aim N Flame utility lighter. In the complaint, Ms. Calles is alleging that the manufacturer was negligent in the design of the utility lighter for failure to include a child proof safety device and provide adequate warnings. Ms. Calles complaint also expressed claims in strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
In consideration of the facts, the issue of the matter is whether Scripto-Tokai Corporation is liable for strict liability, negligence, and breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose with regards to the utility lighter that led to the death of young Jillian Calles.
The rules that the courts utilized in examining this case are, Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Negligence, and Implied warranties. In the strict liability doctrine, six requirements must be fulfilled in determining liability and four elements in determining whether negligence is a factor. The six requirements for strict liability are: (1) the product must already be in a defective condition when it is sold; (2) defendant must be the manufacturers of the product; (3) defective condition of the product is unreasonably dangerous; (4) plaintiff sustained physical harm due to the defective product; (5) the proximate cause for the injury was due to the defective product; and (6) the product remained unchanged from purchase date to date of injury. The four elements of negligence are: (1) defendant owes plaintiff the duty of care; (2) defendant breached that duty; (3) proximate cause; and (4) damages.
In analyzing the circumstances of the case, since Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts was established to provide restitutions for injuries caused by a defective product, the utilization of this theory seems appropriate. In using the theory of strict tort liability, it states that “one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability” (Jennings, 2006, p. 336). Also, within the Strict Liability Section 402A, under design defect theory, two tests must be conducted in determining whether a manufacturer will be held liable, (1) consumer-expectation test; and (2) risk-utility test.
In order for the plaintiff to succeed in her claims under strict liability, the six requirements must be satisfied. Starting with the first requirement, it does not appears that the utility lighter showed any signs that it was in a defective condition when it was purchased. In the complaint, Ms. Calles did not make any mention that the utility lighter was not defective upon purchase nor did she mention that it malfunctioned. For the second requirement, the production of the Aim N Flame utility lighter is produced and manufactured by Scripto-Tokai Corporation making them liable for any defects associated with their products. Since Ms. Calles is a consumer of their product, it holds them liable for any damages or injuries caused by the defect.
As for the third factor, the plaintiff must prove that the utility lighter is unreasonably dangerous. Because the utility lighter functioned for its intended use, it cannot be classified as unreasonably dangerous to the user. Next, the fourth factor, the injuries that Jillian sustained resulted from the misuse of the product since the utility lighter was not manufactured for the use of children. The fifth factor, since the utility lighter was not a defective product, the proximate cause of the injury was not due to the product. The product functioned as expected and the injuries were caused by the mishandling of it which resulted to the accident. Lastly, given that the utility lighter functioned normally and the manufacturers were not aware of any defects in its design, no modifications were made to the product. In addition to the strict liability theory are the consumer-expectation test and risk-utility test. To prove that the product was unreasonably dangerous, the consumer-expectation test is performed to determine what a consumer would expect from a product with regards to its use and safety. This test is based on the expectations of an ordinary reasonable person, i.e. average and normal, not necessarily a particular consumer or user. Another issue that must be determined is who the typical consumer is. For a product such as a utility lighter, the typical consumer who would regularly purchase this product is expected to be an adult. Because this product can be dangerous, it is not suitable and should not be operated by children. Therefore, the consumer-expectation test is reviewed from the point of a view of an adult.
As the ordinary person, Ms. Calles must prove that the utility lighter failed to perform as she expected. Utilizing the consumer-expectation test, when Ms. Calles went to the store to purchase the utility lighter, she is aware that the lighter is used to ignite a fire. When the lighter is turned on, she can expect flames to be released from it which she can use to light a candle or a stove. As a responsible adult, she is also aware of the dangers of the product when operated by children. The question is, when Ms. Calles turned on the lighter, did it perform to her expectations? Evidently, when used by an adult, the intended user, the lighter performed as expected. As a result, the lighter passed the consumer-expectation test.
The court next examined whether liability should attach to Scripto-Tokai on the grounds that the Aim N Flame was poorly designed. The court used the risk-utility test that looks to the risk, costs, and benefits of the product and any alternative design and compares the magnitude of the danger from the product and the cost of avoiding the danger. If the danger outweighs the benefit of the product, the product is then considered unreasonably dangerous. Ms. Calles argued that the accident was caused due to the manufacture failing a duty to make the product child resistant. In response, the manufacturer stated that the product was not designed for the use of children, there is no reason for a child proof design. They also stated that the dangers associated with utility lighters are open and obvious to any adult consumer.
In regards to Scripto-Tokai’s negligence to plaintiff, Scripto-Tokai did not satisfy the first element of negligence. Scripto-Tokai did not owe the duty of care to the child that used the utility lighter that caused the death of her twin sister. Utility lighters are produced and manufactured specifically for adult consumers. As a manufacture for the utility lighter, they owe the duty of care to all of its potential adult consumers. Since the misuse of utility lighters can be potentially hazardous, manufactures must ensure that their products are tested. Besides testing the product, the lighter meets safety standards before it is distributed for sale. They must guarantee that the product is properly assembled and perfectly safe before leaving the distribution site. It is also the manufacture’s duty to make certain that the product has no possible defects when reaching the consumers possession. It was Ms. Calles’ responsibility to make certain that the lighter was out of the reach of her children. Therefore, the person who owed duty of care to the child was Ms. Calles and not the manufacturer.
Due to Scripto-Tokai performing all the necessary precautionary measures to assure the safety of its products to adult consumers, the company does not fulfill the three situations that consist of a breach of duty. The first situation is the appropriate standard of care; second is negligence per se; and third is res ipsa loquitur. Scripto-Tokai did not as a manufacturer breach their duty of care. It is obvious that the possibility of a child using the product will always be present, but it is not the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that the child does not attempt to use or play with the product. The responsibility solely lies on the adult consumer who purchases the product to make sure that it is properly stored and kept out of the reach of children. Aside from keeping the lighter out of reach, it was also Ms. Calles’s responsibility as a parent to watch over her children and not place the responsibility on her 11 year old daughter Amanda. For that reason, Ms. Calles is the person who breached her duty of care as a parent by leaving her children unsupervised.
The third element of negligence is the causation of the injuries. The actual cause of the fire that killed Jillian was not a direct result of a defective product. The actual cause of the fire was due to an unsupervised 3 year Jenna playing with the utility lighter. Had the lighter been properly stored, Jenna would not have played with the lighter which caused the fire at their home. The injuries that Jillian suffered were not caused by Scripto-Tokai’s breach of duty. Scripto-Tokai did not owe duty to Jillian nor to Jenna because the two girls were not a foreseeable plaintiff. The reason why Jillian and Jenna are not considered foreseeable plaintiffs is because the product was not intended for minors but for adults use only. If Ms. Calles was the one that suffered the injuries and it was due to a defective lighter, then she would be considered a foreseeable plaintiff. But without the fulfillment of actual and proximate cause, Scripto-Tokia is not liable of causation.
As for the fourth element, the damages that Ms. Calles and her family suffered were not due to the breach of duty by Scripto-Tokai. In order to claim compensation for damages, Scripto-Tokai would have to be the cause of the damages. But because the claims that are being made against Scripto-Tokai are not sufficient, it will be difficult for Ms. Calles to recover monetary compensation on behalf of her daughter Jillian. In Ms. Calles’ disposition, she stated that she understood the possible dangers of the lighter if it were in the hands of her children, and thus placed the lighter on a high shelf. Therefore, the damages that were inflicted were mere results of Ms. Calles’ negligence towards her family.
Another factor that Ms. Calles raised in the complaint is the breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose for failure to warn. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that all of its products are in good condition, properly packed and labeled from the time it leaves the manufacturing plant, to the store and to the consumer. The manufacturer automatically implies a warranty that their products will function for the intended user and for what it was designed to do. However, once the lighter has been purchased, it is the responsibility of the purchaser to ensure that it is used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Since the utility lighter was not found to be in a defective condition when Ms. Calles purchased it, the manufacturer did not breach the implied warranty of merchantability.
As for implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, any person in a mentally competent state of mind will know that lighters are used to start a fire. It is apparent that Ms. Calles used the lighter and that it functioned for its intended use. Ms. Calles also claimed that the manufacture failed to provide adequate warnings. Because Jenna is not the intended user for the lighter, the manufacture provided the adequate warnings that an adult consumer can understand. Also, the potential dangers of a lighter are open and obvious. Therefore, the manufacturer did not breach the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose for failure to warn.
In conclusion, Scripto-Tokai Corporation is not liable for strict liability tort, negligence and breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. After carefully analyzing the facts and issues concerning this case, it is apparent that the complaints filed against Scripto-Tokai were not within reason of the damages. It was unethical for Ms. Calles to place the blame on the manufacturer when in reality, the fire accident was caused due to her negligence. The manufacturer conducted their business ethically with the adult consumer in mind and as a result, provided all necessary warnings for the intended user.
From a management’s perspective, to prevent future lawsuits from recurring, I would support the installation of a child safety device on the utility lighters. Although the manufacturer was not found at fault for this case, it is best that precautionary measures are taken. It is also important as part of the company’s social responsibility to install the safety device to give parents the piece of mind. Since it is statistically proven that over 35,000 fire incidents are started by children, it would be a wise business decision to create a child proof utility lighter. Although it would cost the company more to install the safety feature, it will lessen the risk of fire accidents caused by children, therefore lessening the risk of lawsuits based on liability. Consumers with small children will appreciate the safety device and will be more inclined to spend a little more to ensure the safety of their children. With this new feature, the company will not only boost sales but will also gain appreciation from consumers for going above and beyond the standard requirement.
In reviewing the legal issues of this case, I would strongly encourage the plaintiffs to settle before reaching trial. Based on the preliminary proceedings, it was obvious that Ms. Calles understood the potential dangers of the utility lighter and also admitted that it operated as intended and as she expected. Ms. Calles was aware that the manufacturer was not negligent in the production of their utility lighters with regards to its design. It would have been a wiser decision for the plaintiff to agree on a settlement prior to the trial. This decision would have changed the outcome tremendously with an end result of collecting some type of monetary compensation from the manufacturer. Although the incident was unfortunate and as a grieving parent, it is difficult to place a price on a child’s life, however, it was partly the fault of Ms. Calles. Had she not left her children unsupervised, Jenna would not have been able to get a hold of the utility lighter.