Phillips v. Cricket Lighters
584 Pa. 179, 883 A.2d 439 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product is fit for its ordinary purpose, and thus does not breach the implied warranty of merchantability, if it functions safely for its intended use, even if it is dangerous when foreseeably misused. Furthermore, a manufacturer's decision not to add a safety feature does not support a claim for punitive damages unless the conduct rises to the level of outrageousness, demonstrating an evil motive or reckless indifference substantially greater than negligence.
Facts:
- Robyn Williams owned a Cricket disposable butane cigarette lighter.
- The lighter did not have any child-resistant safety features.
- On November 30, 1993, Williams's two-year-old son, Jerome Campbell, retrieved the lighter.
- Jerome was able to operate the lighter and used it to ignite some linens in the home.
- The resulting fire killed Jerome Campbell, Robyn Williams, and another of her minor children.
- A fourth child, Neil Williams, survived the fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Gwendolyn Phillips, as administratrix of the estates, sued the manufacturers and distributors of the Cricket lighter in a state trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturers on all claims, including breach of warranty and punitive damages.
- Phillips appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, reinstating the claims.
- The manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which in a prior decision ('Phillips I') affirmed the reinstatement of the negligence claims, reversed the reinstatement of the strict liability claim, and remanded the breach of warranty and punitive damages claims to the Superior Court for reconsideration.
- On remand, the Superior Court again reversed the trial court's summary judgment on the breach of warranty and punitive damages claims.
- The manufacturers (Appellants) filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was granted.
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 breach the implied warranty of merchantability and act with reckless indifference sufficient to support a punitive damages claim by selling a disposable lighter without child-resistant features, when a two-year-old child uses the product to start a fatal fire?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Cappy
No. A disposable lighter without child-resistant features does not breach the implied warranty of merchantability, nor does the manufacturer's failure to include them support a claim for punitive damages. The implied warranty of merchantability requires only that a product be fit for its 'ordinary purposes.' The ordinary purpose of a lighter is to allow an adult to create a flame; it is not intended to be a child's plaything. Since the lighter was fit for its ordinary purpose, it was merchantable, and its tragic misuse does not alter that fact. Regarding punitive damages, the plaintiff must show conduct that is so outrageous it demonstrates an evil motive or reckless indifference. While the evidence might support a claim for negligence, it does not meet the higher standard for punitive damages, as the danger arose from misuse, the product complied with all existing safety standards at the time, and weighing financial concerns in product design does not inherently constitute wanton conduct.
Concurring - Justice Newman
No. While joining the majority's reasoning on the breach of warranty and punitive damages claims, this opinion states that the underlying negligence claim should have also been dismissed. The law of negligence does not impose a duty on manufacturers to make products that are reasonably safe for their intended use, such as lighters or knives, also safe for the unintended use of a two-year-old child. Manufacturers have a duty to create a product that does not, for example, explode or leak, but not to make it child-proof, as that would impose an unreasonable burden on industry for nearly every household tool.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the implied warranty of merchantability in product liability cases involving misuse. It firmly establishes that the 'ordinary purpose' of a product is defined by its intended function for its intended user, not by foreseeable misuses, even tragic ones. This raises the bar for plaintiffs in design defect cases based on a warranty theory. The ruling also reinforces the high threshold for punitive damages, distinguishing a manufacturer's business decision—even one that forgoes a potential safety feature—from the 'outrageous' and 'reckless' conduct required to justify punishment beyond compensatory damages.
Unlock the full brief for Phillips v. Cricket Lighters