Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Emeterio bought disposable butane lighters for use at her bar. Her daughter, Hernandez, took lighters from the bar from time to time for her personal use. They both knew that it was dangerous for children to play with lighters. They also knew that some lighters were made with child-resistant mechanisms, but Emeterio chose not to buy them. Hernandez's five-year-old daughter, Daphne, took a lighter from her mother's purse on the top shelf of a closet in a bedroom in her grandparents' home and started a fire in the room that severely burned her two-year-old brother, Ruben. Hernandez (P) sued Tokai (D) under strict liability and negligence; the lighter was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because it did not have a child-resistant safety mechanism. Such mechanisms were available at nominal cost. D moved for summary judgment in that the lighter is a simple household tool intended for adult use only. There was no duty to protect unintended users from obvious and inherent dangers. D also noted that adequate warnings were provided with its lighters, even though that danger was obvious and commonly known. P argued that it was a decision for the jury to decide under the risk-utility test. The court granted summary judgment for D and P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co