BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter Ex Rel. Carter
346 S.W. 3d 533, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 418, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1168 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a manufacturing defect case, a plaintiff must prove not only that the product deviated from its specifications but also that the specific deviation was a 'but-for' cause of the injury, a standard which often requires expert testimony when the causal link is beyond a layperson's common understanding.
Facts:
- Five-year-old Jonas Carter and his six-year-old sister, Brittany Carter, were playing together.
- Jonas was using a J-26 model BIC lighter.
- Jonas accidentally set fire to Brittany's dress with the lighter, causing her to be badly burned.
- The J-26 lighter model was designed with five child-resistant features, including specified minimum force requirements for the fuel-releasing fork and the spark-generating sparkwheel.
- Post-accident testing of the specific lighter Jonas used revealed that the force required to operate its fork and sparkwheel was below BIC's manufacturing specifications.
- The deviation for the fork force was approximately 1.7 ounces below the minimum specification, and the sparkwheel force was approximately 1.1 ounces below the minimum.
Procedural Posture:
- Janace Carter, on behalf of her daughter Brittany, sued BIC Pen Corp. in a Texas state trial court for product liability.
- A jury found the lighter had both design and manufacturing defects that caused the injuries and returned a verdict for Carter, awarding actual and exemplary damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment against BIC based on the verdict.
- BIC (appellant) appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the trial court's judgment based on the design defect finding.
- BIC (petitioner) sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas (the state's highest court), which held the design defect claim was preempted by federal law and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals.
- On remand, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the trial court's judgment for actual damages, this time on the grounds of a manufacturing defect.
- BIC (petitioner) again petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review of the manufacturing defect holding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff prove causation in a manufacturing defect claim by showing that a product deviated from its specifications and an accident occurred, without presenting specific evidence that the deviation was a 'but-for' cause of the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Johnson
No. A plaintiff fails to prove causation in a manufacturing defect claim by merely showing a deviation from specifications and a subsequent accident; the plaintiff must present legally sufficient evidence that the defect was a cause-in-fact of the injury. The court reasoned that causation is a distinct element from the existence of a defect. Evidence that a product deviated from specifications and was involved in an accident is insufficient. The plaintiff must prove that the injury occurred because of the specific defect and would not have occurred 'but for' that defect. In this case, the impact of small deviations in force requirements (a few ounces) on a child's ability to operate a lighter is not within a lay juror's common experience. Therefore, expert testimony was required to establish the causal link, but Carter provided none to show that Jonas probably would not have been able to operate the lighter if it had met specifications. Because even properly manufactured lighters are not completely childproof, the plaintiff had the burden to prove the defect was the dispositive factor, which she failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a high bar for proving causation in manufacturing defect cases, especially those involving technically complex products. The court's ruling clarifies that plaintiffs cannot rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or ask a jury to infer causation from the mere existence of a defect and an injury. It underscores the critical need for expert testimony to bridge the gap between a specific, often minor, product deviation and the ultimate harm. This precedent makes it more challenging and costly for plaintiffs to succeed in manufacturing defect claims, as it requires a specific, evidence-based showing that the defect was the 'but-for' cause, rather than just a contributing factor, to the injury.
