Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sedlock Ex Rel. Sedlock v. Bic Corp.
Citations: 741 F. Supp. 175; 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15710; 1990 WL 109214Docket: 88-3401-CV-S-2
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri; January 22, 1990; Federal District Court
In the products liability case of Season Sedlock, a minor, and her parents against Bic Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Andover Togs, Inc., the plaintiffs claim that Season Sedlock suffered severe burns from a Bic lighter igniting her shirt, which was manufactured by Andover Togs and sold by Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs assert that the shirt was unreasonably dangerous due to its flammability. Bic Corporation has filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the complaint implies the lighter was defective for not being child-proof or resistant. Bic cites the case Brawner v. Liberty Industries, Inc., which states that a manufacturer of an adult product cannot be held liable solely for not making it child-proof. Bic supports its motion with an affidavit from a Quality Assurance Manager stating that no disposable butane lighters are marketed with child-resistant features. The plaintiffs counter that their complaint does not allege the lighter's defectiveness based on lack of child-proofing and argue that the motion for summary judgment is premature due to outstanding discovery. Additionally, Wal-Mart and Andover Togs oppose Bic's motion, clarifying that the plaintiffs are alleging design defects and negligence, not solely a failure to child-proof. Summary judgment requires the moving party to demonstrate there are no genuine issues of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In Foster v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 787 F.2d 390 (8th Cir.1986), the court establishes that all facts must be interpreted favorably for the party opposing a motion for summary judgment, which bears the burden of proof (Fitzgerald v. Williamson, 601 F.Supp. 92; Midwest Petroleum Co. v. American Petrofina, 603 F.Supp. 1099). Under Rule 56(e), the opposing party must provide specific facts to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial (Automotive Petroleum and Allied Industries Employees Union v. Gelco Corp., 581 F.Supp. 1155). The court identifies two claims in the plaintiffs' complaint regarding the cigarette lighter: one alleging it was defective due to lack of child-proof features, and the other asserting general design defects harmful to people. Missouri law states manufacturers are not liable for failing to make adult products child-proof. Consequently, the court grants defendant Bic's motion for partial summary judgment solely concerning the child-proofing issue, while leaving the question of general design defects for future resolution.