Van Skike v. Zussman
318 N.E.2d 244, 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2130, 22 Ill. App. 3d 1039 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The sale of a common household product that is not inherently dangerous to a minor, or the dispensing of a non-functional toy related to such a product, does not create a legal duty for the vendor to protect against injuries resulting from the minor's unforeseeable misuse of the product.
Facts:
- Robert Van Skike, a six-year-old boy, was an invitee at the Rivera Food & Liquors store.
- Defendant Jack Zussman owned and operated a gumball machine on the premises that dispensed prizes, including a non-functional, miniature toy cigarette lighter.
- Van Skike obtained one of the toy lighters from Zussman's gumball machine.
- Immediately thereafter, Van Skike purchased lighter fluid from the store owner, defendant Steven Rivera.
- Van Skike later attempted to fill the toy lighter with the lighter fluid.
- During this attempt, the lighter fluid ignited, causing Van Skike to be set on fire and suffer injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Van Skike's mother filed a negligence lawsuit on his behalf against Jack Zussman and Steven Rivera in an Illinois trial court.
- Defendant Zussman filed a motion to strike the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted Zussman's motion and gave the plaintiff 42 days to file an amended complaint.
- Plaintiff chose not to file an amended complaint.
- After the 42 days expired, defendant Rivera moved to dismiss the case.
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.
- The plaintiff, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a vendor who dispenses a non-functional toy cigarette lighter from a gumball machine and a store owner who sells lighter fluid to a six-year-old child have a legal duty to protect the child from injuries sustained when he attempts to fill the toy and ignites the fluid with an external flame source?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stamos
No. The defendants did not have a legal duty to protect the child from this harm because the sequence of events leading to the injury was not reasonably foreseeable. For defendant Zussman, who provided the non-functional toy lighter, it was not reasonably foreseeable that a child would acquire the toy, perceive it as functional, purchase a flammable liquid, and then obtain an external source of fire to ignite the liquid. For defendant Rivera, who sold the lighter fluid, the fluid is not considered an inherently dangerous substance that would trigger a special duty when sold to a minor. Citing precedent, the court found that the mere sale of lighter fluid to a minor does not, in itself, constitute negligence, as the potential for misuse does not rise to the level of reasonable foreseeability required to impose a legal duty. The presence of the toy lighter machine on the same premises did not sufficiently increase the foreseeability of harm to create such a duty.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the existence of a legal duty in negligence cases hinges on reasonable foreseeability, not on mere possibility. By classifying common lighter fluid as not 'inherently dangerous,' the court narrowed the scope of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, making it more difficult to hold vendors strictly liable for selling such products to minors. The ruling emphasizes that courts must balance the foreseeability and likelihood of injury against the practical burden on businesses and public policy considerations. This precedent protects retailers from broad liability for injuries resulting from the unforeseeable misuse of common household products by children.
