Curtis v. Universal Match Corp.
778 F. Supp. 1421, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20246, 1991 WL 253384 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product designed for adult use is not considered defective or unreasonably dangerous under the consumer expectations test merely because it is not child-resistant, when the product functions as intended and its inherent dangers are obvious to an ordinary adult consumer.
Facts:
- Aqua Curtis left his two young children, Joel (age 2) and Joshua (age 3), unattended and asleep in the back seat of his car.
- Mr. Curtis left his disposable butane cigarette lighter, manufactured by Feudor and distributed by Universal Match, on the car's dashboard in plain view.
- Joshua awoke, retrieved the lighter, and used it to set his brother Joel's diaper on fire, causing personal injuries to Joel.
- The lighter was in good working order and performed as it was designed to.
- The lighter's packaging contained a printed warning stating, 'KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN,' though the lighter itself had no warning.
- Both parents, Aqua and Deborah Curtis, were aware of the danger of leaving lighters near their children.
- Aqua Curtis knew his son Joshua had a history of playing with lighters and had disciplined him for it on at least three prior occasions.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of Joel Curtis filed a products liability action on his behalf against Universal Match Corporation and Feudor S.A. in the U.S. District Court, invoking the court's diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty) and the federal Consumer Product Safety Act.
- Defendants Universal Match and Feudor filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all claims.
- Plaintiffs conceded and withdrew their claim under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Tennessee's consumer expectations test, is a disposable lighter that functions as intended considered legally 'defective' or 'unreasonably dangerous' because it lacks a child-resistant design, when the danger it poses to children is obvious to an ordinary adult consumer?
Opinions:
Majority - Edgar, District Judge
No. A disposable lighter is not defective or unreasonably dangerous simply because it is not child-resistant when its dangers are obvious to the ordinary adult consumer. Under the Tennessee Products Liability Act's 'consumer expectations' test, a product's safety is judged from the perspective of an ordinary adult consumer when the product is designed for adult use. The lighter was not defective because it performed exactly as expected by producing a flame, and it was not 'unreasonably dangerous' because the risks of fire and harm to children are dangers well within the contemplation of any ordinary adult. Furthermore, the warning on the package was adequate, and the parents' own testimony confirmed their awareness of the danger, meaning an additional warning would not have prevented the injury. Finally, the lighter is not a 'package' for butane under the Consumer Product Safety Act, so federal special packaging requirements do not apply.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional 'consumer expectations' test in products liability, clarifying that for adult-use products, the standard is based on an adult's perspective, not a child's. It establishes that manufacturers do not have an affirmative duty under Tennessee law to make inherently dangerous but properly functioning adult products 'child-proof.' The court's holding demonstrates judicial reluctance to expand product liability law to make manufacturers insurers against parental negligence or foreseeable product misuse by children, placing the onus of safeguarding children on their guardians when dangers are open and obvious.
Unlock the full brief for Curtis v. Universal Match Corp.