Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio answered a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concerning whether Ohio's risk-benefit test could be used to establish a design defect in a properly functioning disposable cigarette lighter. The court held that the Ohio Products Liability Act does not limit the risk-benefit test to malfunctioning products and permits claims based on the absence of feasible safety features, such as child-resistant mechanisms. The court answered the certified question in the affirmative.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the risk-benefit test under former R.C. 2307.75 may be used to prove a design defect in a properly functioning disposable cigarette lighter.
- Whether the lighter's inherent characteristics, obvious danger, intended adult use, or proper operation preclude a design-defect claim based on the absence of child-resistant features.
- Whether former R.C. 2307.75(E)'s inherent-characteristic provision bars recovery when the alleged harm could have been prevented by an alternative safety design.
Holdings
- The risk-benefit test of the Ohio Products Liability Act may be used to attempt to prove that a properly functioning disposable cigarette lighter is defective in design.
- A product's proper functioning and the inherent production of a flame do not preclude a design-defect claim based on the failure to incorporate a feasible safety feature such as child-resistant technology.
- Former R.C. 2307.75(E) does not automatically bar a design-defect claim merely because the product has an inherent characteristic, such as producing and maintaining a flame, when the claim alleges that a safety device could have prevented the harm.
- Ohio design-defect law does not require proof that the product was unreasonably dangerous and does not recognize an obvious-danger defense applicable to design-defect claims.
Key quotations
“Based on all of the foregoing, we hold that the risk-benefit test of the Ohio Products Liability Act may be used in attempting to prove a design defect in a properly functioning disposable cigarette lighter.” (at 514)
“To the contrary, these cases stand for the proposition that a product may be found defective in design under the risk-benefit test where the manufacturer fails to incorporate feasible safety features to prevent harm caused by foreseeable human error.” (at 511)
“Lighters are commonly used and kept around the home, and it is reasonably foreseeable that children would have access to them and attempt to use them.” (at 513)
Factual background
The case concerns a disposable cigarette lighter that functioned as intended by producing a flame when activated. The alleged design defect was not a malfunction, but the absence of child-resistant features that allegedly could have prevented foreseeable harm caused by children accessing and attempting to use the lighter. The court treated the proposed alternative design and the foreseeable risk of child access as central to the statutory risk-benefit analysis.
Procedural history
The underlying federal products-liability litigation involved a claim that a disposable cigarette lighter was defectively designed because it lacked child-resistant features. The district court relied on Caveny and Koepke in concluding that Ohio's risk-benefit test did not apply to a properly functioning lighter. The Sixth Circuit certified the legal question to the Supreme Court of Ohio.