15. Will the arsonist prevail?

After finding out that the explosion was caused by a manufacturing defect in the lighter, the arsonist brought an action against the manufacturer of the lighter based on strict product liability. Under applicable law, the rules of pure comparative fault apply in such actions.

A homeowner hired an arsonist to set fire to the homeowner's house so that the homeowner could collect the insurance proceeds from the fire. After pouring gasoline around the house, the arsonist lit the fire with his cigarette lighter and then put the lighter in his pocket. As the arsonist was standing back admiring his work, the lighter exploded in his pocket. The arsonist suffered severe burns to his leg.

Yes, because the lighter exploded as the result of a defect caused by a manufacturing error
Yes, because the lighter was the proximate cause of the arsonist's injury
No, because the lighter was not being used for an intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose
No, because the arsonist was injured in the course of committing a felony by the device used to perpetrate the felony

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

A products liability claim may be brought by a plaintiff under multiple different theories: (i) intent; (ii) negligence; (iii) strict liability; (iv) implied warranties; and (v) express warranties. The prima facie case for a products liability claim based in strict liability includes (i) a commercial supplier of a product; (ii) producing or selling a defective product; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages. The plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration. Generally, privity between the parties is irrelevant except for certain warranty theories of liability.

A is correct. Under a strict liability theory of products liability, a commercial supplier has an absolute duty to make products safe and will be held strictly liable for all products supplied in a defective or unreasonably dangerous condition. Here, the manufacturer produced a lighter which had a manufacturing defect causing it to explode and the arsonist was injured when the lighter exploded in his pocket. Therefore, the lighter manufacturer would be held strictly liable for the arsonist's injuries.

B is incorrect. Although the arsonist will prevail against the manufacturer, the basis for recovery is because the manufacturer would be held strictly liable for the defective lighter. Under the facts as presented, proximate causation is not at issue.

C is incorrect. Despite previously using the lighter to commit a crime, the arsonist was, in fact, using the lighter for its intended purpose at the time of his injury. After starting the house fire with a small flame, the intended use of the product, the arsonist stored the lighter in his pocket. Because cigarette lighters are made for portable storage in the user's clothing, it was an intended and foreseeable use for the arsonist to place the lighter in his pocket when he had finished using it. Therefore, the arsonist could still recover against the manufacturer on a strict liability theory.

D is incorrect. The arsonist's criminal use of the lighter would not be an inherent bar to recovering against the lighter manufacturer, and in fact is irrelevant to the products liability claim, as the lighter exploded due to a manufacturing defect and was stored in the arsonist's pocket at the time of the explosion.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

15. Will the arsonist prevail?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired