Floyd v. Bic Corporation
790 F. Supp. 276 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Georgia's 'open and obvious' danger rule, a manufacturer has no legal duty to design a product to be 'child-proof' when the dangers associated with the product's intended function are patently obvious to an adult user.
Facts:
- BIC Corporation manufactured and sold an adjustable butane lighter.
- A minor child, Mindy Floyd, obtained one of these lighters.
- The child operated the lighter, which produced a flame and resulted in the child being burned.
- The child's parents were aware of the dangers associated with lighters and had previously warned their children not to play with them.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of a minor child (plaintiffs) filed a personal injury lawsuit against BIC Corporation (defendant) in U.S. District Court.
- The plaintiffs' complaint alleged theories of negligent design and manufacturing defects.
- During discovery, plaintiffs indicated their intent to present expert testimony that the lighter was defective because it lacked child-safety features.
- The defendant, BIC Corporation, filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule as a matter of law that it had no duty to manufacture a child-proof lighter.
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 Georgia law, does a manufacturer have a legal duty to make its product, an adjustable butane lighter, child-proof when the danger of the lighter creating a flame is open and obvious?
Opinions:
Majority - Vining, District Judge
No. A manufacturer does not have a legal duty to make its product child-proof when the danger associated with its intended function is open and obvious. The court, applying Georgia law in this diversity action, determined it must predict how the state's supreme court would rule. Georgia law follows the 'open and obvious rule,' which states that a manufacturer is not an insurer of its products and has no duty to make a product 'accident proof or foolproof.' The court explicitly noted that Georgia has rejected the 'risk-utility balancing test' in favor of this rule. The danger that a lighter will create a flame is patent, and the associated risk that a child could be injured by it is equally obvious. This ruling is narrow and applies only to the duty to child-proof; it does not prevent the plaintiffs from proceeding with separate claims that the lighter had a manufacturing defect that caused fuel to leak.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the traditional 'open and obvious' danger rule in Georgia products liability law, extending it to cases involving foreseeable misuse by children. It illustrates how a federal court in a diversity case predicts state law by analyzing existing precedent, even if not directly on point. The ruling creates a significant barrier for plaintiffs in Georgia who argue that products with patent dangers should incorporate child-safety features, effectively placing the duty of supervision on parents rather than imposing a design duty on manufacturers in such circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Floyd v. Bic Corporation