Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantliability
liability

Related Cases

Estate of Brice v. Toyota Motor Corp., 373 P.3d 977, 2016-NMSC-018
View Case »
Landers v. East Tex. Salt Water Disposal Co., 151 Tex. 251, 248 S.W.2d 731
View Case »
Rausch v. McVeigh, 105 Misc.2d 163, 431 N.Y.S.2d 887
View Case »
Lynch v. Rosenthal, 396 S.W.2d 272
View Case »
Baram v. Farugia, 606 F.2d 42
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Perkins v. Wilkinson Sword, Inc., 83 Ohio St.3d 507, 700 N.E.2d 1247, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,388, 1998 -Ohio- 16

Facts

Thomas Lee Perkins, as administrator of the estates of his deceased children, brought a wrongful death action against the manufacturers and retailers of a disposable butane lighter. The fire that led to the children's deaths was allegedly started by their four-year-old sibling while playing with the lighter, which the estates claimed was defectively designed due to the absence of child-resistant features. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the lighter was not defective under Ohio law.

Thomas Lee Perkins, as administrator of the estates of his deceased children, brought a wrongful death action against the manufacturers and retailers of a disposable butane lighter.

Issue

Whether the risk-benefit test of the Ohio Products Liability Act can be applied to prove a design defect in a properly functioning disposable cigarette lighter.

Whether the risk-benefit test of the Ohio Products Liability Act can be applied to prove a design defect in a properly functioning disposable cigarette lighter.

Rule

A product is considered defective in design if the foreseeable risks associated with its design exceed the benefits associated with that design, or if it is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

A product is considered defective in design if the foreseeable risks associated with its design exceed the benefits associated with that design, or if it is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

Analysis

The court analyzed the application of the risk-benefit test to the disposable lighter, concluding that the absence of child-resistant features could constitute a design defect. It distinguished between products that function improperly and those that operate as intended, asserting that the risk-benefit test is applicable regardless of whether the product functions properly, as long as it could be made safer through alternative design features.

The court analyzed the application of the risk-benefit test to the disposable lighter, concluding that the absence of child-resistant features could constitute a design defect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed that the risk-benefit test of the Ohio Products Liability Act is applicable to properly functioning disposable cigarette lighters, allowing the estates to pursue their claim.

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed that the risk-benefit test of the Ohio Products Liability Act is applicable to properly functioning disposable cigarette lighters, allowing the estates to pursue their claim.

Who won?

The estates of the children prevailed in the sense that the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in their favor regarding the applicability of the risk-benefit test, allowing their case to proceed.

The estates of the children prevailed in the sense that the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in their favor regarding the applicability of the risk-benefit test, allowing their case to proceed.

You must be