Jillian, age three. In March 1998, Calles bought an Aim N Flame utility lighter,

Question

Jillian, age three. In March 1998, Calles bought an Aim N Flame utility lighter, which she stored on the top shelf of her kitchen cabinet. A trigger can ignite the Aim N Flame after an “ON/OFF” switch is slid to the “on” position. On the night of March 31, Calles and Victoria left to get videos. Jenna and Jillian were in bed, and Amanda was watching television. Calles returned to find fire trucks and emergency vehicles around her home. Robert Finn, a fire investigator, determined that Jenna had started a fire using the lighter. Jillian suffered smoke inhalation, was hospitalized, and died on April 21. Calles filed a suit in an Illinois state court against Scripto-Tokai Corp., which distributed the Aim N Flame, and others. In her suit, which was grounded, in part, in strict liability claims, Calles alleged that the lighter was an “unreasonably dangerous product.” Scripto filed a motion for summary judgment. [Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill.2d 247, 864 N.E.2d 249, 309 Ill. Dec. 383 (2007)] (See Unreasonably Dangerous Products.)

1. A product is “unreasonably dangerous” when it is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer. Whose expectation—Calles’s or Jenna’s—applies? Does the lighter pass this test? Explain.

2. Calles presented evidence as to the likelihood and seriousness of injury from lighters that do not have child-safety devices. Scripto argued that the Aim N Flame is an alternative source of fire and is safer than a match. Calles admitted that she knew the dangers presented by lighters in the hands of children. Scripto admitted that it had been a defendant in several suits for injuries under similar circumstances. How should the court rule? Why?

Explanation / Answer

There are 6 requirements for Strict Product Liability :

If these requirements are met , then the manufacture's liability to the injured party is unlimited .

Unreasonably Dangerous Products :

There are 2 conditions that the product sold can be classified into unreasonably dangerous :

The product may be unreasonably dangerous for th following reasons :

The above case study constitutes the reason of Inadequate Warnings.

Q 1) Whose expectation—Calles’s or Jenna’s—applies? Does the lighter pass this test? Explain.

A 1 ) The product is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer. In this consumer is Jenna Expectations could match the level of danger that the product can cause.There were no adequate warnings to how to use the product and the level of danger that can be cause by the misusage of the product.There were no strict instructions or warnings on how to use the product.

Q 2) How should the court rule?

A 2 ) As per the given case study :

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse J
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.