McConnell v. Cosco, Inc.
2003 WL 76096, 238 F. Supp. 2d 970, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party's negligent or criminal misuse of a product is not a legally sufficient superseding cause that absolves the manufacturer of liability if the misuse was a foreseeable consequence of the product's design or inadequate warnings.
Facts:
- Kimberly and Michael McConnell left their eleven-month-old son, Matthew, in the care of their regular babysitter, Lori McClung.
- McClung purchased a highchair, manufactured by Cosco, Inc., from a Harts store owned by Penn Traffic Company; the chair was sold assembled and without its box or instruction manual.
- The highchair had warning labels on its back and underneath its tray instructing users to secure the child with the provided straps and to never leave the child unattended.
- Cosco, Inc. admitted that it was foreseeable that the highchair might sometimes be sold without its box or manual.
- McClung left Matthew unattended and unstrapped in the Cosco highchair for several minutes.
- While unattended, Matthew attempted to slide out of the highchair, but his neck became caught on the tray, cutting off blood circulation to his brain.
- As a result of the strangulation, Matthew suffered severe and permanent brain damage, leaving him unable to ever walk or talk.
Procedural Posture:
- The McConnell family (Plaintiffs) filed a product liability lawsuit against Cosco, Inc. and Penn Traffic Company (Defendants) in the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County, Ohio, a state trial court.
- Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, a federal trial court, based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
- After discovery, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims without a trial.
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 babysitter's negligent and criminal act of leaving a child unattended and unstrapped in a highchair constitute a superseding cause that relieves the manufacturer of liability for alleged design and warning defects when such misuse is foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge Kemp
No, the babysitter's conduct is not a superseding cause that automatically absolves the manufacturer of liability because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the product was defective and whether the babysitter's actions were foreseeable. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the highchair was defective due to inadequate warnings and a defective design. The warnings were mere instructions that failed to specify the severe risk of strangulation, and their placement was not prominent. Regarding design, a jury could find that the foreseeable risks of the design outweighed its benefits, especially since a technologically and economically feasible alternative (a passive restraint system) existed. Because Cosco officials admitted they were aware that caregivers often left children unattended and failed to use safety straps, the babysitter's actions were foreseeable. An intervening cause only severs the chain of proximate causation if it is unforeseeable; since the misuse here was foreseeable, it does not constitute a superseding cause that would entitle the defendants to summary judgment.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces the principle that foreseeability is the cornerstone of proximate cause in products liability cases. It clarifies that even a third party's criminal conduct, such as child endangerment, does not automatically break the causal chain if the manufacturer should have reasonably anticipated that type of product misuse. The decision distinguishes between a mere instruction and an adequate legal warning, emphasizing that a warning must convey the nature and gravity of the risk, not just direct a user's behavior. This case serves as a precedent that manufacturers have a duty to design products and provide warnings that account for predictable human error and misuse, rather than assuming perfect user compliance.
