Duty to Consumers. Terry Campbell, a six-year-old boy, placed a cigarette lighter under his shirt and lit the lighter. His shirt caught on fire, causing him to suffer severe burns. Terry's mother, Mary Campbell, sued Bic Corp, the manufacturer of the

Question

lighter, for damages. Mrs. Campbell contended that the corporation had the capacity to produce cigarette lighters with child-resistant qualities and that its failure to do so was a design defect that made its lighters unreasonably dangerous. (Under strict product liability laws, if a design defect makes a product unreasonably dangerous, the manufacturer and seller of the product may be held liable for any resulting injuries.) Bic sought to dismiss the complaint, claiming that it did not have a duty to design and manufacture child-resistant lighters because the lighters it manu-factured were intended only for adult use. Bic cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which holds that manufacturers are subject to liability for physical harm caused to consumers by the manufacturers' products only when the products are being used "for the purposes and in the manner normally intended." Bic further argued that the risks associated with a lighter are open and obvious and that the corporation therefore should not be held liable. Should Bic be held liable for Terry Campbell's injuries, even though the lighter was not being used as intended? Discuss fully.

Answer 1

Duty to consumers
The state trial court held that although Terry's use of the lighter was an unintended use, Bic should have known that harm caused by a child's use of its product was a foreseeable risk. Because Bic failed to design its product in such a way as to avoid this risk, it did not exercise reasonable care and was therefore liable for Terry's injuries. The court stated that because lighters such as those manufactured by Bic "are commonly used and kept about the home, it is reasonably foreseeable that children will have access to them and will try to use them." In response to Bic's argument under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court held that New York law is broader than that set forth in the Restatement. In New York, manufacturers have a duty to design a product so that it avoids an unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who is likely to be exposed to danger when the product is being used either as intended or in unintended but foreseeable ways. In response to Bic's claim that the risks associated with its lighter were "open and obvious," which in some situations is a defense to a claim of negligence, the court held that in New York that doctrine "is simply another factor that is considered in determining the reasonable care exercised by the parties."