Metzgar v. Playskool, Inc.
1994 WL 380891, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18225, 30 F.3d 459 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer's age recommendation on a toy does not, as a matter of law, preclude a child slightly younger than the recommended age from being an "intended user" for strict liability purposes. Furthermore, the potential choking hazard of a small toy block is not necessarily so obvious as to negate the manufacturer's duty to warn.
Facts:
- Playskool, Inc. manufactured and K-Mart Corp. sold a set of 49 wooden blocks.
- The product's box was marked with the words, "Ages 1 1/2 — 5," but contained no specific warning of a choking hazard.
- The smallest block in the set was a purple half-column, measuring %" wide by 1-%" long.
- The block met all existing federal (CPSC) and industry (ASTM) safety standards for toys.
- Fifteen-month-old Matthew Metzgar was placed in his playpen with the blocks.
- His father, Ronald, left him unattended for approximately five minutes.
- Upon returning, Ronald found Matthew lifeless with the purple half-column block lodged in his throat.
- Matthew died from asphyxiation caused by the block.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of Matthew Metzgar filed a complaint against Playskool, Inc. (manufacturer) and K-Mart Corp. (retailer) in federal district court.
- The complaint asserted claims for negligent design, strict liability design defect, negligent failure to warn, and strict liability failure to warn under Pennsylvania law.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the entire case.
- The plaintiffs (Matthew's parents) appealed the district court's summary judgment order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 manufacturer's age guideline on a toy box preclude a strict liability claim for a child slightly younger than the stated age, and is the choking hazard of a small block so obvious as to negate the duty to warn as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansmann, Circuit Judge.
No. A manufacturer's age guideline on a toy box does not automatically preclude a strict liability claim from a user slightly younger than the stated age, nor is the choking hazard of a small block so obvious as to negate the duty to warn as a matter of law. Regarding the negligent design claim, a low statistical risk of injury does not permit summary judgment when the risk is still significant (e.g., eleven annual deaths from similar toys) and a slight design modification could eliminate the danger without detracting from the product's utility. For the strict liability claim, the concept of an 'intended user' is not strictly limited to the chronological age on the packaging; it can encompass a child's developmental age, especially when evidence suggests the guideline relates to developmental stage and a reasonable consumer would not be clearly alerted to a special danger. Finally, for the failure to warn claims, the danger of a child choking on a small block is not obvious as a matter of law when the manufacturer itself deemed the product safe and the child's parents did not perceive an obvious threat; therefore, the question of obviousness is a matter for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits a manufacturer's ability to obtain summary judgment in product liability cases involving children's toys. It establishes that compliance with federal safety regulations and the inclusion of an age recommendation are not absolute defenses. The court's flexible interpretation of "intended user" to include developmental age shifts the focus toward reasonable consumer expectations rather than a manufacturer's rigid labeling. By classifying the "obviousness" of a choking hazard as a question of fact for the jury, the ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to dismiss failure-to-warn claims early in litigation, thereby increasing the potential for such cases to reach trial.
