1:2. Case no. 1. Drain cleaner; Liquid in can

A five-year-old girl was severely burned and disfigured when a can of liquid drain cleaner on the bathroom sink tipped over and spilled on her face and body. The main ingredient of the drain cleaner was caustic sodium hydroxide. There was negligence in the design of the container. The cap could have been designed so that it would snap shut when the can was not in use. Liability is also based on negligent chemical formulation, and plaintiff alleges defendant failed to warn of the dangerous characteristics of the product.^[1]

1:3. Case no. 2. Drain cleaner; Granular in can

A cat knocked a can of a granular drain cleaning agent into a crib occupied by a six-month-old girl. The plastic snap-open lid of the container opened either because of the fall or because of hydrogen build-up in the can, and the baby started playing with the caustic soda-lye crystals of the cleanser. She suffered severe facial deformity, involving complete destruction of her nose, mouth, and lips, and extensive chemical burns on her hands and arms. Liability is based on the failure to use an effective childproof, unopenable safety closure on the can. Plaintiff also claims negligence in marketing a product of such great dangers and little utility.^[2]

1:4. Case no. 3. Lawnmower

The plaintiff, a 12-year-old boy, was walking beside his friend who was mowing his lawn. Suddenly, a rock shot out from under the lawnmower and struck the plaintiff in the left eye, resulting in permanent loss of vision in the eye. Investigation revealed that the lawnmower was designed in such a way that grass clippings would be propelled into a bag alongside the mower. If the bag was not attached, grass and other objects on the lawn would be propelled with great force out the side of the mower. Thus, it was foreseeable that anyone on the chute side of the mower could be injured by the ejecta. It would have been a relatively simple matter to design a spring controlled deflector which would deflect the ejected matter downward if the bag was not in use.^[3]

1:5. Case no. 4. Ladder

A home owner purchased an aluminum ladder from a large department store. He set the ladder up to paint a house. When he was standing on the fifteenth rung, about 11 feet off the ground, a rung gave way and he fell backwards to the ground. He suffered severe injuries, including a cracked vertebra in his neck. X-ray analysis of the ladder revealed that the welding on two of the rungs, including the one which collapsed, was defective and so weak that a weight of fifty pounds would break it.^[4]

1:6. Case no. 5. Floor wax

A 53-year-old housewife waxed her bedroom floor with Bowling Alley Wax, a floor wax which the manufacturer expressly stated--on the container label--was suitable for use in the home. The following day, while walking across her bedroom floor she slipped and fell, sustaining severe neurological injuries including a cerebral concussion. She subsequently developed a permanent and chronic right subdural hematoma. Surgery was performed as necessary and she remained hospitalized for several weeks following the injury. She still suffers chronic post-concussive headaches and dizziness. Liability is based on failure to provide adequate warning or instructions.

1:7. Case no. 6. Stool

Plaintiff was standing on a stool, the stool collapsed, and plaintiff fell backward, suffering severe head injuries. She continues to suffer from headaches and dizziness. She has lost 3-1/2 months of work and has continuing disability. Plaintiff has recently developed more serious neurological complaints, nose bleeds, severe headaches, and feelings of pressure. The stool had been newly purchased at a local department store. The stool was defective and dangerous in that the legs were not securely anchored onto the base.

1:8. Case no. 7. Slipcover; Upholstery

Plaintiff, a 2-year-old boy, was on a couch in his grandmother's home. His mother was in the same room with him and suddenly noticed that the child was crying and holding his eye. He had been struck in the eye by a metal clip attached to an elastic band which was part of a ready-made slipcover purchased by his grandmother. The elastic band acted like a "slingshot" and propelled the clip into the child's eye. As a result the child was caused to lose his vision in that eye.

1:9. Case no. 8. Bunk bed

A young child was sitting on the top bed of a set of bunk beds purchased two months previously by the parents. The wooden guard railing on the top bunk broke and the child fell to the floor sustaining a serious head injury.^[5]

1:10. Case no. 8.1. Portable crib

9-month-old baby boy is sleeping in his portable crib when the crib collapses and overturns, suffocating the baby. The baby's family sues the portable crib manufacturer for defective design and failure to warn of the risk of the crib collapsing, overturning and suffocating babies. The manufacturer had received dozens of prior complaints concerning the crib's instability.

1:10.50. Case no. 8.2. Crib

The plaintiff mother placed her infant daughter to sleep through the night in her new crib. The next morning, when the mother went to check on her baby, she saw her child entrapped between the crib's side rail and its mattress/mattress support. Specifically, the back of the baby's head was against the crib's side rail, her face was compressed into the crib's mattress, and her body was entrapped between the side rail and the crib's wooden mattress support. She was not breathing. She was later pronounced dead. The cause of death was certified as "Positional Asphyxia."

The crib was purchased new, together with a crib mattress. The crib was designed and manufactured by the Defendants. Between the date of the crib's initial assembly and the date of the incident, the crib had never been disassembled. The infant's mother had placed the child in the crib on occasion for naps prior to the incident. However, the date of the incident was the first occasion that the child was placed in the crib to sleep through the night. The mattress was set at its highest level in the crib.

Prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, this incident was investigated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"). The CPSC performed an on-site examination of the subject crib, took detailed photographs and measurements, and recorded its findings in an official report in which it was critical of the crib's side rails.

The case settled prior to trial.

1:11. Case no. 9. Coffee pot

A young mother invited some neighbors over for coffee. She made the coffee in a decorative perk coffee pot. After she placed it on the table a friend picked it up to pour herself a cup. As she was pouring the handle separated from the pot and the coffee spilled on the lap of another neighbor sitting at the table causing her to sustain serious burn injuries.^[6]

1:12. Case no. 10. Drain cleaner; Liquid in bottle

A young mother shopping with her two children at a local supermarket selected a bottle of caustic drain cleaner from a shelf. As she was holding the bottle so as to read the directions, the cap fell off, spilling the cleaner on the children. The store manager disposed of the bottle and cap before the mother was able to obtain it as evidence in the case.^[7]

1:13. Case no. 11. Wringer washer

The plaintiff, who was eight months pregnant, was feeding some wash into the wringer mechanism of her new washer. Her fingers became entangled in the wet clothes and were pulled into the wringer mechanism, causing her to sustain injuries to her arm. The washer was equipped with a safety release mechanism. However, it was located to the right of the machine and the plaintiff, while she was able to reach it, was not able to exert enough pressure on it to release the wringer. The release button was designed, pursuant to an industry standard, to be released upon the application of 20 pounds of pressure. The wringer had no mechanism to allow the rollers themselves to release when excessive tension was placed on the rollers.^[8]

1:14. Case no. 12. Smoke detector

Three sons died and a daughter was burned as a result of a fire in the family home. A smoke detector and related electrical systems malfunctioned. Other family members escaped but the home and property were partially destroyed. Plaintiffs, among other proofs, contended the decibel level of the noise warning emitted by the detector was not adequate to awaken sleeping persons.^[9]

1:15. Case no. 13. Drain cleaner container; Empty

A young mother rinsed an empty drain cleaner can with water, and making very certain that no water remained in it, she replaced the cap and placed the can on the stairs to await being placed with the trash. Minutes later, her three year old daughter lost the sight in one eye and sustained facial burns when the can exploded as the child was walking up the stairs.^[10]

1:16. Case no. 14. Canned cooking oil

Plaintiff, a 2-year-old boy, was near a stove which had an exposed burner light. While holding an aerosol can of cooking oil, the can exploded in the child's face. The young boy was severely cut on his face resulting in the removal of one of his eyes.^[11]

1:17. Case no. 15. Gas stove; Childproof knobs

Two toddlers, ages 15 months and 2 years, were severely burned while they were sitting on a gas stove top. The children allegedly had covered themselves with vegetable shortening and while sitting on the gas burners succeeded in turning the burners to the "on" position. Plaintiffs alleged that the design of the stove was unsafe in that the control knobs were easily turnable. Plaintiff alleged defendant manufacturer knew of and had access to commercially feasible alternative designs which would require simultaneous pushing and turning actions which would be beyond the capabilities of a young child.^[12]

1:18. Case no. 15.1. Recliner

Elderly woman was found barely conscious on the floor of her home with both legs trapped between the seat and ottoman portion of a reclining chair designed, manufactured, and distributed by the defendant. As a result, the woman had to have both knees amputated. Defects in the recliner were known to the defendant. Specifically, the defendant knew of prior entrapment injuries, including deaths, stemming from use of the recliners.

1:19. Case no. 15.2. Baby bath seat

One-year-old baby boy died when his bath seat tipped over, causing him to submerge in the bath water and ultimately drown. The boy was seated in a baby bath seat manufactured by the defendant. The boy's mother briefly left the bathroom to check on the other children in the home. Upon her return, she found the seat tipped on its side and the baby boy under the water. The baby was unconscious and never regained consciousness prior to his death. The baby bath seat was defectively and negligently designed and sold, as it was not reasonably fit for its intended or foreseeable purpose of keeping the baby upright in the bathtub. The bath seat's suction cups did not adhere properly to the bathtub and the seat was prone to tipping. When the seat did tip, it entrapped the child under the water. The seat provided a false sense of security to parents who felt it was safe to leave a baby in the bathtub for a short period of time. Approximately twenty other babies died as a result of drowning while using the defendant's baby bath seats.

II. Electrical Appliances

1:20. Case no. 16. Color television

A woman was killed and her 2-year-old son was seriously burned in a fire that trapped them in one of the rooms in their house. Plaintiff's expert says that the probable cause of the fire was the family's new color television, which was defective.

1:21. Case no. 17. Portable hair dryer

A 7-year-old girl was drying her hair with a small portable electric hair dryer. The dryer was dangerously designed because it contained no thermostatic controls. As a result its surface could reach a temperature over 520° F. The girl's bedding and clothing was ignited by the heat of the hair dryer and she suffered severe burns on her chest.^[13]

1:22. Case no. 17.1. Hairsetter

Young boy sustained burn injuries to his right hand, right arm, right shoulder and right ear when a Hairsetter device fell from a bathroom countertop and discharged hot water over part of the boy's body. The plaintiffs brought an action against the manufacturer and retailer of the hairsetter alleging the hairsetter was defective and unreasonably dangerous as it lacked an adequate securing mechanism to contain the hairsetter's hot water during use.

1:23. Case no. 18. Vaporizer

The plaintiff, a 4-year-old boy, was burned when he fell out of his parents' bed tipping over the vaporizer which poured boiling water on his chest. The vaporizer was negligently designed in that it had a dangerously high center of gravity and its cover fit loosely on top and could easily fall off if the product were overturned. A simple screw top lid could have prevented this accident. The manufacturer purchased the chamber of the vaporizer already threaded, yet designed a loose fitting cover to fit over the jar and ignored the threading.^[14]

1:24. Case no. 19. Abandoned refrigerator

Two children discovered an abandoned refrigerator and crawled into it. The door closed entrapping them and resulting in their death from suffocation. The refrigerator was designed so that one could not open the door from the inside.

1:25. Case no. 20. Stove

A 28-year-old woman who was 8 months pregnant was standing in front of her stove in a cotton nightgown. The electric stove oven was designed with French doors which open sideways instead of vertically. The oven heating element ignited the nightgown, causing the woman to sustain 75% body burns and to lose her baby. Besides the action against the nightgown manufacturer, there exists a case against the stove manufacturer. The design of the oven doors was unsafe because unlike the conventional oven door, it did not provide two feet of safe clearance space but allowed the user to stand dangerously close to the exposed oven heating element.^[15]

1:26. Case no. 21. Vacuum cleaner

An 11-year-old boy exposed his naked genitals to the air intake fan of a cannister vacuum cleaner. His penis was caught in the intake fan and he was castrated. Liability was premised on defective design and negligence theories because (1) the intake fan blades had sharp edges (2) there was no effective guard over the intake fan vent (3) the cleaner could be operated with the top of the cannister open, thus exposing the fan intake while it was revolving.^[16]

1:27. Case no. 22. Electric blanket

An elderly couple was awakened by flames shooting from the foot of their bed where their electric blanket was connected to its cord. They were seriously burned while trying to put out the fire. A short time after its purchase by the plaintiffs an alleged defect in the wiring of the blanket had been repaired by the seller.

1:28. Case no. 22.1. Electric blanket--Another example

A couple was awakened from their sleep when the husband noticed flames coming from the bottom of his electric blanket. In an attempt leave her home and find safety from the fire, the wife sustained burns over 55% of her total body surface, namely second and third degree burns involving her back, left arm and neck and second degree burns to her face and scalp area. The electric blanket had been purchased by the wife for her husband through a catalogue store. Neither the salesperson nor the blanket packaging warned of the hazards associated with use of the electric blanket. At trial, plaintiff's successfully argued that the blanket contained inadequate warnings and was defectively designed.

1:29. Case no. 23. Fuse box

A father and one of his children were killed and the mother and two other children severely injured in a house fire which the fire marshal's investigation disclosed was caused by over-fusing of a particular circuit. A simple stick-on warning on the fuse box could have alerted the family to avoid this danger. Suit was brought against the installer and the servicers of the wiring and fuse box system for negligent failure to warn of the grave dangers associated with overfusing.

1:30. Case no. 24. Electric stove

A small boy suffered third degree burns over more than 50% of his body in an electrical fire in his family's home. The fire was caused by an electric stove which, while being installed two weeks earlier, had set off a sparking fire at the outlet which was dismissed by the installers as being of no significance. The retailer and its installers were sued for negligent installation and breach of express warranty made by the installers to the purchasers that the installation was "all right" and the stove safe to use.^[17]

1:31. Case no. 25. Coffeepot

A waitress picked up a glass coffeepot which she had just filled from the coffeemaker. The handle assembly slipped off the coffee pot causing the pot to fall to the floor and break. The plaintiff slipped on the hot coffee and fell. She was scalded and her pelvis was broken. The handle assembly, put on the glass coffee pot with water, was allegedly defective in design because water acts as a lubricant rather than a sealer.

III. Flammable Household Products

1:32. Case no. 26. Stove cleaner

A housewife purchased a cleaning agent which was designed and sold to be used to clean stoves. While she was cleaning the grates of the stove with a cloth impregnated with the cleansing agent, the cloth suddenly ignited. The flame spread to the can of cleaning agent which was on an adjacent counter. There was an explosion. The plaintiff threw the can into a sink filled with clear water. There was a secondary explosion and the plaintiff suffered severe burns on her hands and legs with permanent scarring. Although this product was combustible, it was advertised as non-flammable and contained no combustibility warnings.

1:33. Case no. 27. Cooking oil

A mother, watched by her 8-year-old daughter, was preparing to deep fry potatoes in corn oil. The oil container contained no instructions or warnings concerning the phenomenon of oil spattering when it comes in contact with water, nor did the container give instructions on the means of putting out oil fires. The spattering oil caught fire on the stove and caused the pan to catch on fire. While the father was attempting to remove the hot pan, he dropped it, showering himself and his daughter with flaming oil. The father suffered burns on his right arm. The girl suffered permanent burn scarring on her back. Recovery was based on defendant's failure to provide adequate cooking instructions, warnings and fire-fighting instructions.^[18]

1:34. Case no. 28. Hair curlers

A housewife was setting her hair with some hair curlers that she bought at a local retail store. An ash from a cigarette she was smoking ignited the highly flammable curlers, and as a result she suffered severe facial burns with scarring. Recovery is based on the defective and dangerously flammable plastic in the hair curlers.

1:35. Case no. 29. Charcoal lighter fluid

A mother in her early 30s and her 5-year-old daughter were badly burned by a flashback explosion of a one-gallon container of an alcohol solvent and charcoal lighter fluid which was being used by the mother to light a barbecue fire. The mother suffered extensive burns on her legs. The five-year-old girl suffered severe burns. The little girl has suffered seven extensive hospitalizations, all involving major grafting and reconstructive procedures, within the past three years. Recovery in this case was based on discovery that the manufacturer of this product had deliberately removed labeling prior to this accident containing warnings and instructions on the use of the product to start charcoal fires, and that the manufacturer also had rejected the use of a flashback arrestor, which is 100% effective to prevent flashback explosions of this sort, although the manufacturer used flashback arrestors in its own storage and manufacturing processes.

1:36. Case no. 30. Paint remover

A young man was removing paint from his basement floor with a paint remover that had a toluene base. The hot water heater pilot light ignited the vapors causing an explosion which resulted in severe burn injuries causing the man's death. There were no warnings that the vapors were flammable or that the pilot light was an open flame able to ignite vapors.

1:37. Case no. 31. Cleaning fluid

A shoe factory worker had been given a five gallon container of acetone (a highly flammable liquid) and an empty pail to do work at home. The warning "Flammable" was on the acetone container, but the factory worker was given no instructions concerning the proper method of using the liquid. She poured some liquid in the pail, and when finishing her work, she left the uncapped container and the pail with the liquid near a stove fueled by L.P. gas, and went to bed. Early in the morning a fire ensued killing her and other occupants of the home.

1:38. Case no. 32. Fireplace log lighter

The plaintiff and a daughter suffered severe injuries in an explosion which destroyed the family home. His wife and two other children were killed. He was using a fireplace log lighter which was leaking propane gas.

1:39. Case no. 33. Christmas tree lights

A newly purchased pre-decorated Christmas tree ignited resulting in the deaths of three small children and the destruction of the family home. Materials on the tree were found to burn at a rapid rate. In addition, Christmas tree lights similar to those on the tree had been recalled as defective.

1:40. Case no. 33.1. Disposable cigarette lighters

A 6-year-old boy was playing with a disposable cigarette lighter when his clothing caught on fire. The cigarette lighter contained no child-resistant features. The boy sustained severe burns.^[19]

1:41. Case no. 33.2. Hair spray

After valve failed on child's hair spray, minor attempted to cut open can of hair spray. Child was standing in the kitchen near a gas stove when she opened the can. The can released a cloud of hair spray which was ignited by stove's pilot light, severely burning the child. The child sued the hair spray manufacturer on the grounds that the warnings were inadequate and the hair spray was defectively designed with a flammable solvent. Court found that lower court implicitly ruled that product was defective under risk/utility analysis when court sent case to jury.^[20]

1:42. Case no. 33.3. Gasoline

Thirteen-year-old camper sustained total body surface area burns--22% second degree burns and 10% third degree burns-when he and a friend gained access to a gasoline container that was readily available in an unlocked camp garage. The boy and his parents brought a negligence claim against the camp for failure to supervise minor campers, and failure to safely store flammable material. The gasoline was readily available to the campers despite the camp's knowledge that campers had been using the gasoline for the purpose of "huffing", which involves the inhalation of gasoline fumes.

IV. Flammable Fabrics

Culp, When Products are Flammable, Is Labeling Required, 51 Texas Bar J. 584 (No. 6,1988).

McLaughlin, George, Fire in the Night, 35 Trial Magazine 53(November 1999).

Priddy, Winning a Defective Fire-Fighting Clothing Case, 13 PLLR 14 (February 1994).

1:43. Case no. 34. Playsuit

On July 9, 1970, a 10-year-old boy was wearing a playsuit which his mother purchased at a reputable department store. The playsuit caught fire and burned rapidly when it was ignited by a firecracker which a playmate had tossed in his direction. The child had no way of extinguishing the flames, nor could he remove the playsuit easily in the emergency. As a result of this occurrence the boy suffered severe burns and permanent scarring.^[21]

1:44. Case no. 35. Comforter

A baby girl and boy, ages 1-1/2 and 2, respectively, were on a comforter containing a polyster fiber-fill. This caught fire and melted into a hot napalm-like substance which clung to the exposed hands and faces of these children. The remainder of their bodies were covered by clothing which shielded them from contact with the molten comforter. Both children have lost or injured fingers on both hands. Both children have suffered extensive and irreparable facial deformity, including complete destruction of the girl's nose. Liability was based on the dangerous melting characteristics of the polyester fill and defendant's knowledge of available flame retardants which would have prevented combustion if applied to the comforter.

1:45. Case no. 36. Nightgown

A 3-year-old girl was playing with matches, while wearing a cotton flannelette nightgown which was not treated with any flame retardant chemicals. The nightgown caught fire and burned so rapidly that the child's entire body was enveloped in flames. The nightgown was designed so that it could only be removed by pulling it over the head, and was thus very difficult to remove in an emergency. The child suffered third-degree burns of her chest, back, legs, face, neck and arms, including disfigurement of her lips, chin and neck, and especially severe contractures and fusions involving her neck and arms. She has required five hospitalizations for plastic reconstructive surgery in the past two years, and further surgical procedures are planned.

1:46. Case no. 37. Permapress shirt

The plaintiff started a fire near some junked cars in a field to keep warm during a cold winter day. He was wearing a permapress shirt composed of 50% cotton and 50% polyester under his jacket. Suddenly the fire seemed to explode and the right side of his head and right shoulder were burned. Investigation revealed that there was gas in one of the tanks of the abandoned cars and there was no gas cap on the tank. A flashback arrester could have prevented this accident. It was also learned that the permapress shirt he was wearing melted from the heat of the fire and formed a napalm like substance which added to the severity of his burns. It was interesting to note that the inner lining of his jacket was not burned even though the shirt under it melted.

1:47. Case no. 38. Defective match

The plaintiff, a 7-year-old girl, struck a match in order to light a candle. A spark from the match ignited the entire match book, which literally exploded in her hands, igniting the cotton flannelette nightgown she was wearing. She was burned over 70% of her body. The striking surface of the matchbook was improperly positioned by the manufacturer.

1:48. Case no. 39. Child's bib

The plaintiff, an 8-year-old child, was wearing a cotton terry cloth bib, decorated as a Christmas novelty, which he had received in a Christmas package from a relative in another state. While he was lighting an advent candle the bib came in contact with the flame and ignited, causing the plaintiff severe and disabling injuries.

1:49. Case no. 40. Child's nightgown; Space heater

The plaintiff, a 5-year-old girl, was seriously burned over 60% of her body when her cotton flannelette nightgown burst into flame after it was ignited by flames from a space heater located in the family's bathroom. The space heater was not properly guarded so as to prevent fabric or other materials from coming in contact with the heating element.^[22]

1:50. Case no. 41. Poncho

The plaintiff, a 5-year-old girl, had been given a new plaid poncho, made from a synthetic material, which had a decorative fringe along its edges. The fringe caught fire, and the entire poncho was engulfed in flames. The girl sustained massive disfiguring burn injuries.

1:51. Case no. 42. Carpet

A 63-year-old man was found dead in his home by firemen who were called to the home after a fire was reported by a neighbor. After investigation it was learned that the fire was started as the result of a faulty pressure regulator on the outside LP gas tank. It was also found that the floor heater which was serviced by this gas was not properly insulated. The medical examiner found that the plaintiff was overcome by toxic fumes emitted from the wall-to-wall carpet which was located in direct proximity to the floor heater.

1:52. Case no. 43. Child's nightgown; "Trick" candle

The plaintiff, a 6-year-old girl was seriously burned over portions of her torso when her cotton nightgown was ignited by a "trick" party candle. Suit was brought against both the nightgown and candle manufacturers. Plaintiffs contended that the materials used in the nightgown were highly combustible and burned at a dangerously fast rate.

1:53. Case no. 44. Pajamas

The plaintiff, an 11-year-old boy, was severely burned after the cotton pajamas which he was wearing were ignited by the burner on a stove in the family's kitchen. Several attempts to extinguish the flames were unsuccessful. Investigation revealed that the particular fabric used in the pajamas was readily ignitable, burned fiercely and produced a high intensity heat causing deep and terrible burns on the boy's skin in seconds.

1:54. Case no. 45. Robe

The plaintiff, a 43-year-old woman, lit a cigarette and was walking in her apartment when, experiencing pain, she looked down and saw her chenille bathrobe was in flames. She suffered severe burns over more than 60% of her body. Examination of the robe revealed that the robe was composed of a fabric which when ignited would burn rapidly and intensely. Suit was brought against both the manufacturer and retailer.

1:55. Case no. 45.1. Uniform

Workers were catastrophically burned while wearing uniforms provided by their employer. At the time of the fire, the workers were trying to extinguish a fire that had started in a feed bin. In the course of their efforts, a flash fire occurred, igniting the workers' uniforms. While the flash fire lasted only seconds, the uniforms continued to burn, resulting in burns over 80% of the workers' bodies. The uniforms were not flame resistant and contained no warnings or instructions concerning the risk of flammability.

1:56. Case no. 45.2. Pajama top

On one Saturday morning in February, a young girl and her friend were preparing breakfast at home. When the young girl reached across the electric stove, the lit burner ignited the bottom of the pajama top she was wearing. The label on the pajamas indicated they were 100% cotton. The pajama top continued to burn until the young girl was able to extinguish the flames in the shower. The young girl was horribly burned on her right arm and on the right side of her neck and chest. She sustained second degree burns over 10-12% of her body. Parents of this young girl brought a products liability action claiming the wrongful acts or omissions of the pajama manufacturer included marketing a pajama set that was unreasonably prone to ignite, that burned at an unreasonably fast rate of speed, that was not self-extinguishing, that was not made of appropriate fabric for sleepwear and that was not marketed with adequate warnings or instructions.

1:57. Case no. 45.3. Flammable tent, bedding

Three-year-old girl sustained severe burns resulting in death when the tent in which she was sleeping ignited after her bedding came in contact with a lit candle. The fire occurred in connection with a camp meeting event at the XXX campground. The girl's family attended the event and rented two tents and two campsites from XXX.

XXX and its managerial employees were negligent in conceiving, planning and supervising the camp meeting. XXX allowed open flames in the tents and had no effective policy banning open flames from the tents. XXX also maintained inadequate fire fighting equipment, violated several Massachusetts fire safety regulations and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions to campers who rented the tents. Liability for the little girl's death was shared by the manufacturer and seller of the tent, the girl's cot, sheet, and sleeping bag.

V. Glass Door

1:58. Case no. 46. Non-shatterproof glass door

A 12-year-old girl was attending an outdoor barbecue. She had to go in the house to answer a phone call. As she dashed into the house she ran into a glass door which shattered from the impact. As a result she received severe lacerations and permanent facial disfigurement. There was no attempt by the manufacturer to design the glass so that it would be visible if clean. The glass was also dangerously defective in that it was not the type of safety glass which, when shattered, breaks into a harmless powder-like substance.^[23]

VI. Gas Explosions^[24]

1:59. Case no. 47. Liquid propane gas; Unfamiliar odor

A 59-year-old college professor of education, died two days after an LP gas explosion in his rented, furnished house in Vermont. The decedent and his wife were unfamiliar with the smell and significance of ethyl mercaptan odorant used in LP gas. His wife smelled an odor but did not recognize it as a warning of the presence of gas. The explosion occurred when decedent, who had smelled the odor, lit a cigarette. The local retailer admitted that it was its standard practice to require its employees to instruct new customers how to recognize ethyl mercaptan odor; the employees failed to do so in the instant case. The gas supplier admitted that it would not expect customers to recognize ethyl mercaptan or associate that odor with gas without express instructions, and admitted that its only instruction method was the sending of a "welcome" pamphlet which decedent allegedly never received.

1:60. Case no. 48. Liquid propane gas; Camper

A housewife was severely burned when she ignited a stove which came with a camper she had recently purchased. There were no warnings concerning the use of LP gas provided when she bought the camper. The fuel was inadequately odorized. There were no warnings about the dangers of LP gas and precautions related to its use. Investigation disclosed a leak in the piping allowing LP gas to accumulate unburnt in the burner dish.

1:61. Case no. 48.1. Liquid propane gas; Camper; Inadequate odorization

A 5-year-old child was severely burned when a fire occurred in the camping trailer in which she was sleeping. The child's father, who was fishing at a nearby lake, saw smoke coming from the trailer, ran into the burning trailer, and rescued her. The father had installed a wood-burning stove in the trailer, which was also equipt with a cooking range fueled by propane gas. The fire resulted from a propane leak which was ignited by the wood stove. Plaintiff brought suit against the wood stove manufacturer and the suppliers of the propane gas involved in the fire. Plaintiff successfully argued that the propane gas was not adequately odorized in that the plaintiff's father had not smelled any leaking propane prior to the fire.

1:62. Case no. 48.2. Liquid propane gas; Trailer; Inadequate warnings and odorization

Husband, wife and their two children lived in a trailer. Husband awoke and attempted to light a propane heater that had been installed in the trailer. A flash fire occurred, resulting in burns to the husband, which ultimately caused his death eight days later. The wife and children sustained burn injuries. The flash fire resulted from the ignition of propane which had accumulated in the trailer from a slow leak in the propane equipment. The heater and the trailer were sold with inadequate warnings and the propane was inadequately odorized, making the presence of propane undetectable in the trailer.

1:63. Case no. 49. Liquid propane gas; Hot water heater

The death of a young man in Ohio was caused by severe respiratory system burn injuries sustained in an LP gas explosion in the basement of his home. Unburnt LP gas was discharged through the burner head of a hot water heater which had become rusted causing burner port occlusion.^[25]

1:64. Case no. 50. Faulty pressure regulator

A 63-year-old man was found dead in his home by firemen who were called to the home after a fire was reported by a neighbor. After investigation it was learned that the fire was started as the result of a faulty pressure regulator on the outside LP gas tank. It was also found that the floor heater which was serviced by this gas was not properly insulated. The medical examiner found that the plaintiff was overcome by toxic fumes emitted from the wall-to-wall carpet which was located in direct proximity to the floor heater.

1:65. Case no. 51. Methyl alcohol

Junior high school students were conducting science experiments in their classroom, using methyl alcohol recommended in their textbook. An explosion of the alcohol vapors occurred resulting in one of the students receiving severe and permanent burn injuries. The plaintiff presented evidence that the published text failed to warn students of the hazardous nature of methyl alcohol and the dangers associated with its foreseeable usage and that the inherently dangerous alcohol product had no place in a junior high school setting when other safer chemicals could have been recommended by the publisher for the same purpose.

1:66. Case no. 52. Liquid propane gas; Inadequate odorization

The plaintiff suffered extensive burns as a result of a flash fire that occurred when LPG propane gas leaked into the basement of his home. The propane, which had not been used previously, was delivered the day before the incident. The plaintiff charged that the gas was inadequately odorized, thereby not providing any warning of the presence of an explosive concentration of gas and making it unreasonably dangerous and hazardous to the user.

1:67. Case no. 53. Liquid propane gas; Inadequate safety valve

Three members of a family were killed and another severely injured when a gas explosion destroyed the family home. The gas valve which fed the fireplace did not have a safety shut-off. In addition, it could not be determined by observing the valve whether the gas was "on" or "off."

1:68. Case no. 54. Gas torch

The plaintiff's husband was working in a fiberglass bucket of a "cherry picker" using a gas torch unit. Suddenly there was an explosion and fire. The bottom of the bucket was burned out, and plaintiff's husband fell to the ground and died as a result of the fire. The gas being used was heavier than air and collected in the bucket creating a "booby trap". Numerous complaints and reports of less serious injuries had been made in connection with the particular type of gas used and the equipment being used in close proximity to it.

1:69. Case no. 55. Natural gas pipe; Condominium

Plaintiff, a 28-year-old woman was visiting her friend at her condominium. Unknown to them, since there was no warning odor, a natural gas pipe had broken. Gas seeped into the building, causing it to explode. As a result of the explosion, the plaintiff suffered serious injury.

1:70. Case no. 55.1. Toluene

Explosion at varnish factory occurred when toluene was added to solvents in a drum; one worker died and another was injured. The toluene manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions for using toluene. The warnings and instruction failed to alert users of the hazards of the toluene with regard to grounding requirements, ventilation requirements, the dangers of mixing toluene with other chemicals and the dangers of empty containers. The only apparent warnings or instructions issued in connection with toluene were contained in a material safety data sheet, that may not have ever been provided to the workers' employer.

1:71. Case no. 55.2. Underground propane gas tank

Forty-two-year-old man sustained catastrophic burn injuries while filling an underground propane gas tank. Unknown to the man, the underground tank had been inactive for years and had developed a hole. When the propane was inserted into the tank, it leaked out onto the adjacent ground and was dispersed into the atmosphere through a nearby drain pipe. When the man went to ignite the pool heater's pilot light, the gas ignited and the man was engulfed in flames. A products liability suit was brought against the tank manufacturer, among others. The manufacturer had marked the tank "AG/UG" indicating it was appropriate for above ground or below ground use. The manufacturer failed, however, to advise installers that the tank was not suitable for underground use unless it was modified with a special coating. Around the time the tank at issue was installed, the manufacturer developed a warning label advising installers of the need for the special coat for underground use. This warning label was not on the tank at issue. The manufacturer made no effort to ascertain whether its customers had the expertise needed to install the underground tanks and made no effort to educate its customers on safe installation practices.

1:72. Case no. 55.3. Propane gas explosion

Woman was severely burned when propane sold by ZZZ ignited. ZZZ negligently failed to properly fill the propane container, failed to recertify said container despite regulations imposing a duty on ZZZ to do so. ZZZ also negligently inspected, tested, marketed, advertised, sold and distributed said propane. ZZZ negligently failed to warn and instruct or adequately warn or adequately instruct users of said product of its dangerous and defective characteristics, and of the safe and proper method of using said product. The woman sustained severe and permanent burn injuries. Her body was severely and permanently scarred and disfigured. She has undergone extensive medical treatment and which will continue in the future. She has been unable to engage in her usual activities. She does not enjoy life as she did prior to the incident.

1:73. Case no. 55.4. Unmarked gas line

Two city employees were killed, and five city employees and two residents were injured when an unmarked gas line was accidentally hit, causing a gas explosion. The evidence indicated that a city Department of Public Works (DPW) employee called a safety company to announce an intended excavation at the site. The company's notice was sent to all of the utilities in the area including an outside locating company which the gas company had hired to do its locating. The locating company sent a locator to the scene who mistakenly marked "NO GAS" in the area of an underground service line which ran from the main street into the home at the site.

The DPW crew arrived at the scene and observed that "NO GAS" was marked on the pavement. The crew ran its backhoe which struck the underground service line. Despite the fact that "NO GAS" was marked on the pavement, when gas was smelled at the scene, the crew stopped digging. As a result of a series of miscommunications, neither the gas company nor the fire department was notified until about 90 minutes after the line was struck. At about the same time the gas company was notified, the house on site exploded, resulting in the two deaths and seven injuries.

The personal injury cases settled first and the wrongful death cases settled on the day before jury selection was scheduled to start. The wrongful death settlements are believed to be the largest ever attained in Massachusetts.

VII. Cartons, Containers, Bottles

1:74. Case no. 56. Soft drink carton

A woman selected a six-pack carton of cola from the shelf in the store. Holding the carton in one hand by the handle, and a bag of groceries in the other, she left the store and proceeded to cross a street. At that time the six bottles fell through the bottom of the carton and struck the street, shattering glass fragments into the air, which struck plaintiff in the eye causing her to lose her eye. Liability was successfully maintained against the carton manufacturer based on unsafe carton design (it was scored along the bottom) and use of unsafe materials, as well as failure to use water resistant resins.

1:75. Case no. 57. Glass coffee container

A family had purchased a new automatic drip coffee pot and had used it for several months without incident. While the mother was carrying the glass coffee container down some stairs to the breakfast area, the pot shattered causing hot, scalding coffee to spill on a young child. Examination of the pot revealed defects in the glass and handle of the container.

1:76. Case no. 58. Perfume bottle

The plaintiff wished to surprise his wife on their anniversary by purchasing a large bottle of perfume for her in a local retail store. A salesgirl placed one bottle on the counter for the husband to sample. As the plaintiff bent over to twist the cap of the bottle and sniff the contents, he heard a cracking sound; the bottle had shattered, and plaintiff sustained a laceration of his right thumb. He required emergency hospital treatment.^[26]

1:77. Case no. 59. Soft drink bottle

A nine-year-old girl, while running home with a bottle of soft drink, tripped and fell on the bottle, which exploded, blinding the girl in one eye. Despite the supposed external blow to the bottle, plaintiff established through expert analysis of the bottle fragments, that the explosion was caused by weak points in the glass wall and scoring of the internal wall, rather than by the fall since there was no evidence of glass fracture proceeding from an external impact point. Such presentation resulted in settlement of this case before trial.^[27]

1:78. Case no. 60. Steering mechanism; Station wagon

The plaintiff was driving a 1967 station wagon down a major highway. Her husband and small daughter were asleep. The plaintiff accelerated the car to pass another car. She suddenly lost control of the steering and the rear of the car began to swerve from side to side. The car crashed and the occupants were severely injured. Expert testimony established that the column support and clamping system of the steering system were unsafely designed and improperly assembled.^[28]

1:79. Case no. 61. Steering mechanism; Sports car

A girl had noticed for several days that her sports car had a tendency to veer suddenly to the left as the car was shifted into high gear. Before embarking on a trip of several miles, she apprised her regular service station mechanic of the tendency; but he thought the difficulty no more serious than tire maladjustment, and made the pressure and alignment changes he felt were adequate. After the girl left the service station, the car once again swerved uncontrollably to the left and collided with a vehicle coming the other way. The girl died in the collision. The day of the funeral, the girl's parents received notice of recall from the automobile manufacturer, warning owners of possible defects in the steering apparatus.^[29]

1:80. Case no. 62. Tire explosion; Injury to service station employee

Plaintiff, age 49, sustained injury while in the process of mounting a tire on a wheel rim purchased more than six years before the date of the accident. The injuries were sustained as the tire exploded when it was being mounted on the rim. Plaintiff sustained a nasal fracture and lacerations, as well as contusions and abrasions of his forehead.^[30]

1:81. Case no. 63. Tire explosion; Injury to service station customer

A service station customer was blinded and paralyzed when struck by a tire blown off a mechanical tire changer as it was being inflated and mounted on a wheel rim. Expert reconstruction established that the air compressor feeding air to the tire was dangerously over pressurized; that the tire mounting machine failed to contain proper safety devices to secure the tire and rim to the machine, and that the service station chain failed to take proper safety precautions to keep customers away from the danger zone where tires were mounted.^[31]

1:82. Case no. 64. Gears; Flywheel

As a truckdriver downshifted his gears, suddenly the flywheel came smashing through the floorboard of the truck and struck him. As a result of this, he lost control of his vehicle, crashed, and suffered severe personal injuries. Two days after the accident, the driver received a recall notice from the manufacturer of the truck, warning him of the need to replace the flywheel which caused the accident. The action was based on improper flywheel design and materials selection.

1:83. Case no. 65. Gas tank explosion

The plaintiff was a 22-year-old high school graduate. He had enlisted in the Navy and hoped to become a printer. He was a passenger in an automobile which was struck in the rear by another vehicle, causing the gas tanks of both vehicles to explode. He suffered extensive third-degree burns and permanent disfigurement. His left hand was replaced with a mechanical claw. Even with extensive plastic surgery he will have grotesque features. At issue are the design and placement of both gas tanks and the construction of the gas tank walls.^[32]

1:84. Case no. 66. Limited slip differential

Plaintiff was driving a 1963 vehicle equipped with a part known as a limited slip differential, which caused the plaintiff to lose control of his vehicle as he encountered a wet road surface. His car crossed the median strip and ran into another vehicle. The collision left the plaintiff permanently paralyzed. Defendant failed to warn or instruct car users who bought this option that the limited slip differential had significantly different and dangerous effects on vehicle handling from those of a conventional differential. It was also maintained that the option was useless and dangerous at normal cruising speeds. Discovery established that one of defendant's own test engineers had told defendant this, but that defendant never tested the effect of the option on vehicle handling.

1:85. Case no. 67. Seat belt^[33]

The plaintiff was driving her car. As she approached an intersection she was struck head-on by another vehicle. A week before the collision she had received a notice from the manufacturer of her car concerning a defect in the seat belt which would not permit it to be secured properly. Thus, it was impossible to use the seat belt. The force of the collision was such that the plaintiff was thrown fifty feet from the car, causing her severe injuries which resulted in her death.

1:86. Case no. 67.1. Lap belt

Driver lost control of his automobile and collided with a tree. At the time of the accident, the rear seat passenger in the accident vehicle was buckled into his lapbelt. The accident vehicle was equipped with a lapbelt and shoulder harness system for the front seat passengers; but was equipped only with a lap belt without shoulder harness for the rear seat passengers. The lapbelt which the rear seat passenger was wearing at the time of the collision crushed his intestines and caused serious damage to his spinal cord resulting in paralysis. The crush injury to his intestines required a small bowel resection with hemicolectomy and colostomy.

1:87. Case no. 67.2. Lap belt-another example

Eight-year-old boy sustained serious spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia from a rear seat lap belt installed as original equipment in his mother's car. The boy was seated in the right seating position of the middle bench seat of his mother's car. Prior to impact, he was sitting straight up in his seat, wearing the lap-only seatbelt provided by the car manufacturer. The boy was not mispositioned in any way. At the moment, another vehicle crossed the center line and struck the front of the boy's mother's car. The boy sustained a spinal cord injury that was directly attributable to the lap-only seatbelt provided by the car manufacturer.

At the time this vehicle was manufactured and sold, the car manufacturer was aware that lap-only seatbelt restraints were unreasonably dangerous and defective. The car manufacturer had also been aware for decades of the safety advantages of three point belts over lap-only seatbelts.

1:88. Case no. 67.3. Lap/Shoulder belt option v. standard equipment

One child died and one was severely injured when the wagon driven by their father collided with another vehicle. The children were seated in the middle bench seat wearing the lap seat belts provided by the manufacturer. The manufacturer sold the same wagon with rear seat lap/shoulder belts as standard equipment in four other countries. However, in the United States, the wagon was sold with rear lap seat belts only and an option for rear lap/shoulder seat belts. The plaintiffs brought claims for strict liability and negligence. The plaintiff first tried this crashworthiness case in April ____. Following a defense verdict, the plaintiffs appealed and requested the First Circuit to certify the question of the plaintiffs' burden of proof in a crashworthiness case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The First Circuit certified the question, which was answered in Plaintiffs' favor by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, clarifying the plaintiffs' burden of proof in a crashworthiness case with indivisible injuries. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that in such cases, the burden of allocating the injuries caused by the collision or the defect belongs to the defendants.

The case was retried after the First Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial. The plaintiffs presented evidence of the dangerousness of lap seat belts and the manufacturer's inadequate testing and negligent conduct by disregarding internal test results. As a result of the incident, both children struck their heads on intruding parts of the vehicle. A principal benefit of lap/shoulder belts is to prevent and minimize head contact with intruding vehicle parts. Additionally, there was evidence of the manufacturer's reluctance to install retrofit rear lap/shoulder seat belts, despite recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board to make the retrofit kits available for after market vehicles. After three weeks, the jury returned special verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs with pre-judgment interest.

1:89. Case no. 68. Accelerator

The plaintiff was driving a late model American-made car and was in the process of accelerating when his accelerator pedal stuck and did not release. A serious crash resulted and plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries. Expert examination revealed that the cause of the accelerator's sticking was an inadequately designed throttle linkage system.

1:90. Case no. 69. Exploding air bag

Plaintiff's husband had been given a car by his company for his business use which was equipped with an air bag, the purpose of which was to inflate upon collision of the car with an object. While the plaintiff and her husband were sitting in the car, the air bag suddenly exploded, causing the plaintiff serious personal injury. The air bag was part of an experimental program by the manufacturer to test its use and feasibility under certain driving and weather conditions.^[34]

1:91. Case no. 70. Exhaust system

Plaintiff, who had been a truck driver for 20 years, was given a new diesel truck to drive in the course of his employment. The plaintiff noticed as he was driving the cab that it filled up with exhaust. He complained about the exhaust to his employer. Some time later he suffered a heart attack which was precipitated by his exposure to the carbon monoxide in the cab. The company then had a new exhaust pipe installed on the truck so that the carbon monoxide fumes would be directed away from the cab.

1:92. Case no. 71. Abandoned car; Gas tank explosion

The plaintiff, a 13-year-old boy, had been fishing in a nearby river on a cold spring day. He built a small fire near an old car in a field to keep warm. As plaintiff was standing near the car there was a flash fire and explosion and plaintiff was struck with flames. His jacket and shirt burned and he sustained serious burn injuries. An examination of the car after the fire indicated that the gas tank had ruptured. Flames from the fire had ignited the gasoline vapors remaining in the tank of the car. The gas tank could have been designed so that such an explosion could not have occurred.^[35]

1:93. Case no. 72. Hood latch

An elderly gentleman purchased a new car from his local dealership. Two days later, as he was proceeding down a busy city street, the car's hood flew open obstructing his vision and causing him to strike a utility pole. He sustained contusions to his chest, resulting in death. After the collision the dealership repaired the hood latch pursuant to a recall notice concerning defective hood latches from the manufacturer.

1:94. Case no. 73. Tailgate latch

As a family was driving on a major highway in their new station wagon, the rear tailgate door suddenly opened, causing a child to fall out of the car. The car following behind the station wagon struck the child and caused her serious injury. Before leaving on the trip the father had secured the tailgate door in accordance with the instructions contained in the owner's manual.

1:95. Case no. 74. Gas tank fire and explosion

The driver was killed due to burn injuries and his passenger was extensively and severely burned when the automobile in which they were riding burst into flames upon being struck in the rear by another vehicle. Suit was brought against the manufacturer on negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability claims, based on the structural weakness, inadequate protection and imprudent placement of the gas tank, all of which contributed to the easy ignition, rapid spread and intensity of the fire in the foreseeable circumstances of a rear-end collision.^[36]

1:96. Case no. 75. Automobile seat design

While plaintiff's small foreign car was stalled on an interstate highway, it was struck from behind. During the rear impact collision, the loading force of the passenger against the seat back caused an upward force on the seat bottom. The force was strong enough to cause the seat runner to separate from the tracks propelling the seat and passenger through the roof.

1:97. Case no. 76. Four-wheel drive vehicle

The plaintiff was severely injured when the four-wheel drive vehicle he was driving rolled over, trapping him underneath. Examination of the vehicle and available literature revealed that this type of vehicle, even at low speed, was extremely vulnerable to rollovers due to its high center-of-gravity. Suit was brought against the manufacturer for defective design and inadequate warnings.

1:98. Case no. 77. Utility truck

Plaintiff suffered severe, permanent, disabling, and disfiguring injuries including a fracture dislocation of the cervical spine at C5-6 level with resulting quadriplegia after a utility vehicle went out of control. Plaintiff's recovery was based on allegations that said vehicle was defective in that its fiberglass roof failed, causing him to be ejected from the vehicle in the course of an accident.

1:99. Case no. 77.1. Vehicle roof

An automobile equipped with a T-top rolled over and the a-pillar collapsed, resulting in the detachment of one of the bayonet rods holding the T-top. The T-top then impacted with the neck of the woman driving the vehicle, causing an injury to the fifth cervical vertebrae. The claim was settled for a substantial sum after three weeks of trial. The roof was defective in that the a-pillar was not made of sufficiently strong material to prevent collapse in the event of a rollover and the T-top was not properly designed since it should not have become disattached.

1:100. Case no. 77.2. Fuel storage system

Father was operating a motor vehicle, when he ran over a tree branch. There were five passengers in the vehicle, including Father's three young children. After running over the branch, Father smelled gasoline and pulled over to the side of the road. Gasoline was seen to be leaking out of the fuel tank. Father and the adult occupants of the vehicle opened the doors to get the children out. Before they could do so, the gasoline ignited, engulfing the vehicle. Two children died as a result of the fire and one sustained burn injuries. The cause of the children's deaths and injuries was the vehicle's defectively designed fuel system--the fuel tank was located in a vulnerable location in the vehicle and was unguarded; the tank was structurally inadequate and subject to being struck and punctured by road hazards and debris; and the bottom surface extended below the vehicle floor pan, exposing its leading edge to road hazards and debris.

1:101. Case no. 77.3. Fuel pump inertia switch

Man was rendered paraplegic after attempting to reset fuel pump inertia switch that had been accidentally activated. The switch was located on the left, outer side of the vehicle. Man was hit by an oncoming vehicle while resetting the switch.

1:102. Case no. 77.4. Door latch

Woman was a passenger in a car when she was ejected from the vehicle when the car door opened during a collision. As a result of the accident, the woman sustained injury to her cervical spine. The woman brought suit against the car manufacturer claiming the vehicle had a defective door latch system. The case settled for $915,000.

1:103. Case no. 77.5. Hydraulic lift

Worker suffered traumatic and permanent disabling injuries when his right ankle and foot were trapped and crushed while using the defendants' hydraulic lift gate. Plaintiff was standing on the lift gate and controlling the upward movement of the lift with the accessible control bar. When the piece of equipment he was loading into the truck moved, he released the control bar to stabilize it. After the bar was released, however, the lift continued its upward movement, trapping the worker's foot between the lift and the rear sill of the truck. The "conventional" hydraulic lift gate was designed and manufactured by defendant W, and installed, maintained and serviced by defendant L, Inc. The worker was injured as the direct and proximate result of the defendants' negligence and breaches of warranty, including, among other defects, the failure by the defendants to provide adequate safety devices and warnings to prevent such foreseeable tragedies.

1:104. Case no. 77.6. Rollover

Driver and passengers in Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) sustained serious injury when their SUV rolled over several times after a side-impact collision.

1:105. Case no. 78. Model car fuel

A young boy received a model racing car in the mail as a premium from a soft-drink manufacturer. The starter mechanism of the car threw off sparks which ignited the vapors of the racing fuel, causing a flashback explosion of the fuel can. Neither the soft-drink firm nor the manufacturer of the racing car had ever run tests on the flammability of the fuel or on the suitability, from the standpoint of safety, of the fuel when used in the miniature car. The fuel manufacturer's liability was based on negligent design of the can and failure to equip it with a flashback arrestor. The car manufacturer's liability was based on the design of the starter system and negligence in marketing as a toy, a product used with explosive fuels.^[37]

1:106. Case no. 79. Slingshot; Wire

A ten-year-old boy purchased a small wire slingshot from a toy rack in a convenience food store located in a neighboring state. The slingshot had been made in Japan. Soon after the purchase, he fired a projectile from the slingshot which struck a six-year-old girl in the eye, rendering her sightless in that eye.

1:107. Case no. 80. Push toy

A 2-year-old boy sustained serious brain damage from anoxia caused when his air supply was cut off by the knob of a push toy handle which detached itself and lodged in his throat. The manufacturer was liable for negligent defective design and construction of the toy.

1:108. Case no. 81. Slingshot; Hunting-type

A hunting-type slingshot was being sold by a local dimestore as a toy for children. It was purchased by one young teenager whose younger brother then used it. The younger brother accidentally fired it, causing the projectile to strike a playmate in the eye and blinding him. The slingshot had been advertised as a hunting weapon capable of bringing down wild game and should never have been sold as a toy. Laws in states other than the one where this incident took place prohibited the sale and distribution of slingshots to minors.

1:109. Case no. 82. Kite

A 7-year-old boy sitting on a curb looked up and was struck in the eye by a kite flown by another child. He lost the sight in one eye. Experts' reports established that the kite had design defects and inadequate warnings. Plaintiff's proof established the delta-winged kite had a tendency to dive rather than float or drift gently to earth.

1:110. Case no. 83. Frisbee

A flying toy, ordered through the mail, struck an eight-year-old boy in the eye causing severe pain and injuries. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the edging of the toy was made of small lead weights.

1:111. Case no. 84. Target tennis

While a seven-year-old boy was playing target tennis in his home, he was hit by the tennis ball in his left eye, and the blow resulted in serious eye injury.

1:112. Case no. 85. Top

A mother noticed a toy top in the window of a toy store next to her local grocery store. It seemed like a good surprise to bring to her little boy; the mother purchased the top and carried it home in the bottom of a bag of groceries. The top exploded the first time it was wound, causing severe facial injury to the little boy.

1:113. Case no. 86. "Sketcho" glass

A youngster was playing with a glass-paneled drawing toy filled with aluminum powder. The toy is designed to enable the child to draw with the powder as it is controlled by magnetized dials. When the youngster in this case inadvertently leaned on the panel, the glass shattered and the ragged shards slashed his forearm. Moreover, some of the aluminum dust became imbedded under his skin, causing blotchy scars. Design negligence was based on the use of glass face panels and the use of aluminum powder.

1:114. Case no. 87. Air rifle

Two teenagers were using an air rifle, which shoots pellets, in the basement of the home of one of them. As a result of a ricocheting pellet, the bystanding teenager permanently lost his sight in one eye. Suit was brought against the manufacturer of the gun on the ground, among other things, that there existed a duty to warn expected users of the product of the danger of ricochet and the precautions one should take to protect oneself.^[38]

1:115. Case no. 88. Toy oven

A three-year-old child was playing with a plug-in toy oven. She inserted her right hand into the socket of the light bulb which provides the heat for the oven. She received a severe electrical burn on her right hand.

1:116. Case no. 89. "Time-bomb"

A 9-year-old boy and his friends were playing catch with a toy time bomb, a hard-surfaced plastic ball with a timing device protruding from the top of the ball. According to the directions accompanying this toy, each player's object is to toss the ball to another player before the ticking of the timer terminates with a loud bang. A friend excitedly threw the ball in the boy's direction. It bounced on the tile floor and struck him in the mouth, lacerating his lips and gums and fracturing two of his front teeth. Plaintiff's claim was based on expert testimony that the defendant's selection of a hard plastic surface for such a toy, knowing it would be thrown quickly and violently, was unsafe and improper.

1:117. Case no. 90. Darts^[39]

An 8-year-old girl was playing a game of outdoor "Lawn" darts with her playmates. The object of the game was to throw the heavy, pointed darts in the air and try to get them to land in the center of a plastic ring placed on the ground. The plaintiff was standing behind one of the rings and was struck by one of the darts whose point penetrated her head. As a result of this injury the girl has epilepsy. Expert testimony has established the dangerous design of the product because of its impact velocity and in-flight instability. Defendant under government pressure later placed a warning on the package indicating that it could cause fatal injury and was unsuitable for children to play with.

1:118. Case no. 90.1. Lawn dart

10-year-old girl and her sister were playing in their yard. The girl's sister was playing with lawn darts. Upon leaving the yard and going into her house, the girl was struck in the head with one of the lawn darts. The girl sustained a skull fracture, resulting in severe and permanent brain injury. The child is disabled from her normal activities and is subject to seizures. The lawn darts lacked readily visible warnings alerting users of the hazards of lawn darts. One portion of the case settled for $1,250,000.

1:119. Case no. 91. Airplane

An 11-year-old boy was playing with a toy airplane. The plane was attached to a string and was spun around one's head. When the boy attempted to stop the plane, the nose of the plane struck him in the eye and he was blinded. It is alleged that the hard plastic nose of the plane was dangerous in design and that an accident of this nature was foreseeable.

1:120. Case no. 92. Toy figurine

A 1-1/2-year-old boy was given a toy which included several small figurines. The age recommendations on the box stated that the toy was suitable for very young children. The child ingested one of the small figurines, which were too narrow in diameter, and the oxygen supply to his brain was cut off, resulting in permanent brain damage.^[40] Had the figurine been better designed so that, for one thing, it was larger, the child would not have been able to swallow it in such a manner as to cause serious injury.

1:121. Case no. 93. Child's indoor swing^[41]

A 5-year-old child was sitting in a swing which was suspended on a portable metal exercise bar supplied by the manufacturer to be used in connection with the swing. The directions that came with the bar said that it would support a "200 pound man with ease." The bar fell on the child's head causing him to sustain massive skull injuries and permanent brain damage. The bar (commonly used in doorways as a "chinning" and exercise bar) and swing were sold to be used together as one unit.

1:122. Case no. 94. Balloon

The plaintiff was given a balloon as a free premium by a local eatery. As he was blowing up the balloon it exploded in his eye causing him severe injuries. Upon inspection it was determined that the balloon was defective. Proper quality control and inspection procedures would have prevented such defective balloons from entering the marketplace.

1:123. Case no. 95. Toy train

A ten-year-old boy was given a metal, battery-operated toy train by a neighbor who had purchased it at a variety store in a neighboring state. As the child was opening up the compartment housing the batteries he sustained a deep cut on his finger. Several days later he developed severe blood poisoning from the cut.

1:124. Case no. 96. Punchball

A small child and a neighbor were playing in a nearby park with one of the toys purchased by the parents of the first child. The toy was a "punchball" that had just been inflated to a size well within the range recommended by the manufacturer. While the children were throwing the ball, it burst in the neighbor's face, leaving her permanently blind in one eye. The defect which caused the ball to explode was a weakness in the wall of the punchball caused by particles of foreign matter on the latex molds used to make these punch balls.

1:125. Case no. 96.1. Realistic weaponry

Court held that realistic looking toy gun presented a substantial risk of harm and had no redeeming value or utility and as such, could be considered unreasonably dangerous. Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp. (1994, La App 4th Cir) 632 So 2d 375, cert gr (La) 638 So 2d 1075 and revd on other grounds (La) 646 So 2d 318.^[42]

1:126. Case no. 96.2. Wagon

18-month-old boy was injured while playing with a wagon. Specifically, the boy's left index finger became wedged within the "pinch point" above the left rear wheel of the wagon. At the time of injury, the child was riding in the wagon in a reasonably foreseeable manner. The child's doctor noted a thickening of scar tissue on his left index finger, resembling a keloid.

1:127. Case no. 96.3. Doll

There were 35 incidents of a child's hair or finger getting caught in the Cabbage Patch Snacktime Kids' mouths. In response to the incidents, Mattel offered to label the dolls with a warning that "long hair and fingers can get caught in the doll's mouth ... and that the doll's chewing action can be stopped immediately by removing the back pack."^[43]

1:128. Case no. 96.4. Magic wand^[44]

Three-year-old boy and his sister were playing "Glinda the Good Witch" with the "Magic Wand" when the star on the top of the Wand became separated from the plastic stick, flew across the room and hit the boy in the eye. The three-year-old boy sustained eye injury. The Wand was defective because the Wand's star was not securely attached to the Wand's stem. Additionally, the Wand's star was made of rigid, pointed and weighted plastic, which served only to increase the Wand's potential for eye injury. The Wand lacked any warnings of this hazard. The case settled for $300,000.

1:129. Case no. 96.5. Toy trumpet

One-year-old boy was playing with toy trumpet when he sustained deep lacerations to the interior of his mouth, which required surgery and was followed by bouts of post-anesthesia pneumonia and middle ear infections at regular intervals. In addition to the physical injuries the boy suffered, he was diagnosed with a speech delay for which he requires therapy. After the trumpet accident, the boy stopped speaking for eight months. The boy's language was developing normally until the accident.

1:130. Case no. 96.6. Little pro hammer

Boy was using Little Pro Hammer to strike rocks when the hammer chipped, causing a metal fragment from the hammer to became lodged in the boy's right eye. The boy sustained a traumatic injury to his eye. The hammer was defective as it had a steal hardness level akin to hammers intended for use by adults only, although the name of the hammer rendered its use by children foreseeable. The case settled for $305,000.

X. Playground Equipment^[45]

1:131. Case no. 97. Swing; Defective s-hook

A 6-year-old boy was playing on an outdoor swing. The swing could easily be removed from the chain, and in fact this is what the boy did. The boy then climbed the chain and slid down it. The second time he did this he slipped and he was castrated by the exposed S-hook which held the seat of the swing. The use of the "S" hook design is the basis for design negligence liability.

1:132. Case no. 98. Swing; Defective chain link

A 5-year-old girl was swinging on a new swing which she received for her birthday. As she was swinging backwards the chain holding the swing snapped and she fell backwards. The plaintiff has a broken neck and it is doubtful whether she will ever walk again. The cause of the accident was a structural defect in the metal chain links which supported the swing.

1:133. Case no. 99. Amusement park ride

Plaintiff was severely injured while dismantling an amusement ride at defendant amusement park when he struck a part of the ride known as a "pin" with a hammer. The pin shattered sending metal fragments into both of his eyes. Plaintiff charged that defendant negligently designed, developed, inspected, marketed, advertised, promoted, sold, selected, and distributed the assembly pin used in conjunction with this carnival ride. Plaintiff also charged that defendant negligently failed to warn or adequately warn or instruct plaintiff concerning the assembly pin and its dangerous and defective properties.

1:134. Case no. 100. Outdoor slide

A 9-year-old boy decided to try out a new outdoor slide that his friend had just received. As he was sliding down the slide he held onto the outside edge, as would have been expected. The sharp metal edge of the slide was not rolled under and as a result two of the fingers of his left hand were amputated.

1:135. Case no. 100.1. Jungle gym

Four-year-old boy sustained leg injury when he fell from a jungle gym. The jungle gym was made specifically for children to climb upon. Notwithstanding the climbing nature of the jungle gym, the area under the gym was not sufficiently covered with a material that would soften the impact of falls and minimize injury. Instead, the material under the gym was hard and sandy.

1:136. Case no. 100.2. Chain ladder with exposed metal base

Two-year-old boy sustained a depressed skull fracture and related traumatic injuries when he fell from a chain ladder onto an exposed metal base at the playground. The boy's foot slipped on the chain ladder, causing him to fall "head first" toward the exposed, flat metal base. The boy was accompanied by his mother. The town was engaged in willful, wanton or reckless conduct by failing to properly install, inspect and maintain the subject playground. The town knew or should have known of the exposed metal base and failed to adequately address this hazard, by either removing the metal base, burying it deeper into the ground, or adding surfacing. The ladder manufacturer was equally liable. The manufacturer was aware that playground injuries occurred every year due to inadequate surfacing. The manufacturer was also aware that a child who fell head-first onto a piece of metal could be severely injured and the more shock absorbent a surface, the greater the likelihood that the severity of an injury will be reduced.

XI. Recreational Equipment

1:137. Case no. 101. Swimming pool; Inflatable and portable^[46]

A 9-year-old girl was playing in a neighbor's backyard swimming pool, an inflatable and portable above-ground pool with a uniform depth of about four feet. The only way to enter the pool was from a ladder-platform. There were no warning signs or notices about the dangers of diving off the platform into the shallow water. The girl dove, broke her neck, and will remain paralyzed for the rest of her life. Given the placement of the platform and the pool, it was foreseeable to the manufacturer that such an incident would occur. Liability was predicated on the design of the pool, the unsafe depth of the pool, and the failure to warn against diving into the pool.^[47]

Unsupervised 21-month-old child sustained brain injury when she gained access to a three-foot deep, above-ground swimming pool via a 16-inch-high pool filter. Plaintiff argued that the filter which was adjacent to the pool was defective as it was readily climbable by youngsters, enabling them to gain access to the pool. Case settled for 4 million prior to trial.

1:138. Case no. 102. Swimming pool; In-ground

Plaintiff sustained injuries resulting in quadriplegia when her head struck the bottom of an in-ground pool and liner constructed and marketed by the defendant. Plaintiff alleged that defective product was marketed without adequate warning or instructions and sold without available safety devices which could have prevented or reduced the risks of injury.^[48]

1:139. Case no. 103. Snowmobile; Speed-governor bell

Plaintiff, 22 years old, was injured in Dryden, Maine, while he was idling a snowmobile. The speed-governor bell separated from the drive shaft, crashed through the engine housing, and struck the plaintiff in the face. Plaintiff sustained multiple fractures of the jaw and nose, but reached an end result without cosmetic deformity and with no major functional loss. Expert engineering analysis established that the speed-governor bell, a centrifugal clutch arrangement, was inadequately secured to the end of the drive shaft by a single bolt and a simple washer. During normal idling or backing up of the snowmobile the drive shaft and governor bell rotated in such a manner as to unscrew the bolt, causing the free-spinning governor bell to fly off the drive shaft. An action in negligent design was based on the defendant's failure to key or lock the bolt arrangement to the shaft so that the governor bell could not rotate with on the drive shaft.^[49]

1:140. Case no. 104. Snowmobile; Treads

Plaintiff, a 15-year-old female, was a passenger on a snowmobile. The machine had no handgrips for passengers and had an old model tread, a wooden tread with metal cleats, instead of a rubber tread as on current models. There was no protection covering the tread of the rear corners. Plaintiff fell off the machine, caught her leg in the tread, and sustained severe laceration which has left her with permanent cosmetic deformity and a limp.^[50]

1:141. Case no. 104.1. Snowmobile^[51]

Rider of snowmobile sustained injuries resulting in quadriplegia as a result of snowmobile's defective steering skis.

1:142. Case no. 104.2. Snow tube

Seven-year-old boy and his mom set out to go sledding at the neighborhood elementary school. At the school, one of the boy's friends asked the boy if he could use the boy's sled and in turn, the boy could try his snow tube. The boy and his friend then went to the top of the hill where other children were sledding. The boy got onto the snow tube sitting up with his legs straight in front of him. As he proceeded down the hill, the snow tube began to accelerate in speed and to turn left towards the school building. The boy was unable to steer or stop the snow tube and struck the wall of the school. The boy sustained serious and permanent injuries, including a liver laceration, and a severely damaged kidney resulting in a right nephrectomy. The boy has only one remaining kidney, and is permanently scarred and disfigured.

The boy and his parents brought a product liability action alleging the boy's injuries resulted from the inadequate design, testing, safety devices and warnings for the snow tube, a product that was unstable for foreseeable uses, incapable of being effectively steered, and prone to reaching an excessively high rate of speed.

1:143. Case no. 105. Dune buggy^[52]

A group of children were driving a dune buggy. A spare can of gasoline was on the floor board of the vehicle. As the dune buggy went over a bump, a spark from the exposed battery caused an explosion. As a result the plaintiff received second and third degree burns over 50% of her body.^[53]

1:144. Case no. 106. Bicycle;^[54] Brakes

The plaintiff bought a two-wheel bike for his 5-year-old boy. The bike was equipped with training wheels but had no brakes. The package that the unassembled bike came in stated that brakes were not included. On his first ride on the bike the boy went down a hill, was unable to stop the bike, and crashed into an oncoming car. He suffered two broken legs and a fractured pelvis.

1:145. Case no. 106.1. Bicycle; Pedal

Thirteen-year-old boy sustained serious injuries when the pedal stem on his new bicycle broke in two pieces, causing the jagged edge of the broken pedal stem to impale his right knee. The break occurred as the boy was peddling up the hill; he fell from his bicycle, saw a hole in his knee and immediately began to feel intense pain. The wound was bleeding profusely and his friend ran to a nearby police station to summon help. EMTs arrived on the scene shortly thereafter and transported the boy to the hospital. Following his discharge from the hospital his symptoms included numbness, tingling, decreased sensitivity and increased pain and irritability at the site of his injury. He suffered from extensive tissue damage and had to undergo surgery.

Plaintiffs asserted product liability claims against the manufacturer of the defective component, the company that assembled the bicycle, the distributor and the retailer, including claims for negligent design, manufacture, inspection and testing, as well as claims for breach of warranty.

1:146. Case no. 107. Boat

The plaintiff had recently purchased a 27-foot power boat. The boat was equipped with a pump to dissipate gas vapor which built up in the hold. The plaintiff forgot to activate the pump prior to starting the ignition. There was an explosion followed by a fire. The plaintiff has third-degree burns over 30% of his body. A simple alarm device was available to detect the presence of dangerous gasoline fumes. Had this been provided by the manufacturer of the boat this accident could have been prevented.^[55]

1:147. Case no. 108. Tent

The plaintiffs, two boys ages 12 and 10, were spending the night at a camp site. Before retiring they left a candle outside their tent which was the source of ignition. The canvas material of which the tent was constructed caught fire. The two boys were severely burned and will suffer permanent scarring. It would have been an easy matter for the manufacturer to treat the tent canvas with a flame retardant so that this tragedy could have been averted. The cost to the manufacturer would have been negligible as compared to the harm which resulted.

1:148. Case no. 109. Sunglasses

The plaintiff, a 15-year-old girl, had purchased a pair of inexpensive, imported sunglasses from a major discount store. She brought them with her to the beach and fell asleep on the shore with them on her face. She awoke to find the plastic frames in flames and forming a sticky napalm-like substance on her face. As a result she suffered severe facial burns and permanent scarring. An analysis of the plastic frames revealed them to be of a type of acetate compound of very low ignition point. The radiated heat of the sun eventually ignited the frame resulting in the accident.^[56]

1:149. Case no. 110. Trailer tent

A father and his young daughter were killed and his son badly burned when their tent trailer, which had been equipped with an LP gas stove and tank, burst into flames at a rural campground. The fire was reportedly caused by sparks from a nearby campfire blown by the wind onto the trailer's canvas canopy which burst into flames, trapping the victims inside. There was also evidence that the fire started from leaking LP gas within the tent trailer.

1:150. Case no. 111. Child's exercise bar

A 5-year-old child was sitting in a swing which was suspended on a portable metal exercise bar supplied by the manufacturer to be used in connection with the swing. The directions that came with the bar said that it would support a "200 pound man with ease." The bar fell on the child's head causing him to sustain massive skull injuries and permanent brain damage. The bar (commonly used in doorways as a "chinning" and exercise bar) and swing were sold to be used together as one unit.

1:151. Case no. 112. Ski^[57] boots; Wrong bindings

Plaintiff, while on a skiing holiday, was traversing a ski slope and attempting to make a turn when he was caused to fall, sustaining a severe fracture to his left leg. Plaintiff's skibindings did not release, which they should have. The ski shop which had sold the ski-bindings and boots to the plaintiff had fitted the boots to the bindings. However, after this occurrence it was learned that the toe piece on the bindings was defectively designed and was not intended to be used with the particular type of boots sold to plaintiff.

1:152. Case no. 113. Ski boots; Improperly installed bindings

Plaintiff, a novice skier, bought his first pair of skis, bindings, and boots at a local ski shop. About two years later he was caused to fall while traversing a small ski slope. His bindings did not release and as a result he sustained a serious fracture to his leg. The ski shop employee who installed the bindings set the bindings without having plaintiff stand in his boots or measuring his height and weight as recommended.

1:153. Case no. 114. Boat winch

As the plaintiff was winching his 16-foot sailboat out of the water onto a boat trailer, the hook attached to the rope on the winch snapped and flew back towards the plaintiff, striking him in the arm. The rope and hook were already with the winch when it was purchased by the plaintiff second-hand from a private party. The winch manufacturer did not sell the winch with the rope and hook.^[58]

1:154. Case no. 115. Life preserver

The two plaintiffs had purchased a boat and its accessories, including life jackets, from a friend, second-hand. On a fishing trip the boat overturned, and the plaintiffs, unable to right it, were forced into the water. Their life jackets within a few hours became logged with water and began to weigh them down, and so they discarded them. One plaintiff drowned several hours later and when the other plaintiff was eventually picked up by her rescuer, her jacket was retrieved and inspected. An examination of the jacket revealed that the material used by the manufacturer to fill the jackets and to give them bouyancy failed to measure up to applicable standards for life jackets.

1:155. Case no. 116. Motorcycle helmet

The plaintiff had purchased a motorcycle helmet from the dealer where he purchased his motorcycle. While riding his motorcycle it went out of control, throwing the rider to the ground. On impact with the ground the helmet fractured and the plaintiff suffered fatal head injuries.^[59]

1:156. Case no. 117. Roller coaster^[60]

The plaintiff was a passenger on a roller coaster when she was thrown from it during the ride. She fell to the tracks below, breaking her neck and back. The roller coaster was equipped with fixed or stationary restraint bars, which allowed the force of the ride to propel her from her seat. Shoulder harnesses or adjustable restraint bars would have held her in her seat.

1:157. Case no. 118. Flammable camping tent

Plaintiff and a friend were camping with a canvas tent. The tent was a winter-type tent and was equipped with a chimney to permit the use of a stove within the tent. Although the tent manufacturer had previously made flame-retardant tents, it had stopped making them some years before and plaintiff's tent was not flame-retarded. The tent caught on fire causing severe burns to the plaintiff.

1:158. Case no. 119. Motorboat

The plaintiff was seated in a motorboat watching a waterskier. When the boat crossed the wake of a wave, the plaintiff was ejected into the water and was subsequently struck by the boat, causing a serious injury to her hand and arm. Questions were raised about the design of the boat and its capacity to inhibit or prevent fall-outs under foreseeable conditions of usage.^[61]

1:159. Case no. 120. Bicycle; Frame

A teacher-coach was injured when the frame of his bicycle broke apart during a bike tour. As a result of multiple fractures and injuries received when he was thrown from the bicycle, he is a quadriplegic. An expert found that the tubes and joints of the bicycle, which were weak and inadequate, would fail under foreseeable usage.

1:160. Case no. 121. Swimming pool; Above-ground

The plaintiff, a thirteen-year-old girl, dove into a four foot above-ground pool and hit her head on the bottom. She is paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair with minimal use of her arms.^[62]

1:161. Case no. 122. Swimming pool; Above-ground; Another example

The plaintiff, a 15-year-old boy, dove into a four foot above-ground pool and suffered severe injuries resulting in guadriplegia. He is confined to a wheelchair and lives in a home for severely physically handicapped children. Suit was brought for failure to warn and negligent construction.^[63]

In a similar case, a boy suffered serious injuries when he dove into a defectively designed above-ground swimming pool. The case settled for $735,000.

1:162. Case no. 123. Camper trailer; Generator

A husband and wife died as a result of being asphyxiated in their deluxe family camper. The couple had activated a generator to power the air conditioning unit inside the motor home. The generator's exhaust system had been improperly designed and installed by the manufacturer, allowing the carbon monoxide fumes to seep into the trailer.

Three children and their babysitter were poisoned by carbon monoxide gas in a motor home; as a result, one child died. A defective generator did not perform effectively, thereby allowing carbon monoxide exhaust to accumulate beneath the motor home. The deadly fumes seeped into the home through the floor, causing the injuries.^[64]

1:163. Case no. 124. Swim mask

The plaintiff, a 15-year-old boy, lost the vision in his right eye when the swim mask he was wearing shattered, sending splinters of glass into his eye. Plaintiff alleged that the mask was improperly designed and manufactured. In addition, the defendant manufacturer failed to warn of the potential hazards associated with the mask.

1:164. Case no. 125. Tent heater

Plaintiff and his family were camping using a propane heater designed for use in tents. A few minutes after plaintiff had adjusted the temperature, the heater caught on fire, igniting the tent. The plaintiff and his wife suffered severe burns. A gas leak in the regulator assembly was one of the causes of the fire.^[65]

1:165. Case no. 126. Motorbike

The 55-year-old plaintiff was on a second honeymoon with her husband in Bermuda. On their last day there they rented motorbikes. After riding for a while they pulled off the road into a rest area, bringing the bikes to a standstill. Thinking the motorbike was off, the plaintiff tried to dismount. The bike shot out from under her, throwing her to the ground. She is now a quadriplegic, totally dependent on others for her care. Plaintiff allege that the manufacturer failed to warn, failure to instruct on safe use, and defective design of the motorbikes operating equipment.^[66]

1:166. Case no. 126.1. Roller skates

Minor child sustained injuries while roller skating with defective roller skates. Specifically, while skating, the brake stopper came off one of the child's skates, preventing her from braking and causing her to fall. Child and child's family sued the manufacturer and retailer of the roller skates.

1:167. Case no. 126.2. Spas and hot tubs^[67]

New Jersey teenager was killed when she drowned in a hot tub. Her body was sucked against the drain at the bottom of the hot tub and was held under water.

1:168. Case no. 126.3. Mini-hammock^[68]

Girl sustained anoxic brain injury when a mini hammock became entangled around her neck, acting as a noose, and cutting off the air supply to her brain. The mini-hammock was defective as it posed a severe hazard of strangulation. The hammock failed to incorporate any device, such as spreaders, to keep the hammock strings from posing a strangulation/entanglement hazard. The hammock failed to warn of its hazards and was sold with a picture of a child on the box using the hammock without supervision.

1:169. Case no. 126.4. Off-road bicycle

Biker was riding his off-road bicycle in a park when the bicycle hit a rock and stopped suddenly, throwing the biker over the handle bars. The biker landed on his head and sustained serious neck injury, resulting in quadriplegia. At the time of the incident, the biker was wearing a helmet and riding gloves. Biker argued that the bicycle lacked appropriate instructions and warnings. The bike came with a generic owner's manual for an ordinary street bike and contained no warnings of the hazards associated with off-road biking.

XII. Sports Equipment^[69]

1:170. Case no. 127. Parachute; Harness

A young lady in a recreational parachute was being towed by a motor boat. She was about 20 feet in the air when the harness she was wearing released. She sustained an injury to her spinal cord resulting in a permanent quadriplegia. There is strong evidence that the harness was improperly designed and that this was the cause of the occurrence.

1:171. Case no. 128. Parachute; Opening pin

A 22-year-old student went to a parachute jumping club to take lessons. When he made his first jump the main parachute (which was attached to a static line in the plane) failed to open. The student plummeted to his death. Subsequent investigation has revealed that the metal parachute pin was defective and this was responsible for the malfunction in the main parachute.

1:172. Case no. 129. Rifle cartridges

The plaintiff purchased a box of rifle cartridges from a major discount chain store. When he fired the rifle, the barrel ruptured, resulting in his losing an eye. An expert analysis of the remaining cartridges revealed that they were negligently manufactured and contained an excessive amount of gun powder.^[70]

1:173. Case no. 130. Spear gun

The plaintiff was injured when a power head for a spear gun he was using exploded and caused serious, permanent injury to his thumb. The plaintiff was a dentist in the Air Force. He was able to continue in the general practice of dentistry but will not be able to become an oral surgeon. Expert investigation revealed that the power head safety pin was located off center so that it did not always cover the firing pin, although it appeared to be in place.^[71]

1:174. Case no. 131. Hockey face mask

A 15-year-old boy purchased a hockey goalie face mask. While playing goalie, he was struck in the face by a hockey puck shot by another teenage boy. The metal screening on the mask did not absorb the force of the puck, and the plaintiff suffered a broken nose and other facial injuries. There was some evidence that there may have been a structural defect in the wire screening.^[72]

1:175. Case no. 132. Golf cart

The plaintiff was injured when the golf cart he was a passenger in tipped over as it was going up a hill. An engineer studied the vehicle and determined that it was negligently designed--the golf cart was constructed so that its center of gravity was such that it could not safely negotiate an incline.

1:176. Case no. 133. Football helmet

A 16-year-old high school senior was playing quarterback for his high school football team. As a result of being tackled he suffered severe head injuries. Investigation showed that the plastic helmet he was wearing was cracked and was insufficient to absorb the shock of his head hitting the ground after the tackle. This design defect may be responsible for scores of head injuries suffered by high school football players each year.^[73]

1:177. Case no. 134. Gun and ammunition

The decedent kept a.38 caliber gun for recreation and for protection. On the day in question three armed men entered his premises and asked him to hand over money. The plaintiff reached for his gun and attempted to fire it three times. But each time the gun did not discharge the bullet. During this exchange the robbers shot and killed the decedent. Upon investigation it was found that the ammunition was defective and this was one of the reasons the gun did not fire.^[74]

1:178. Case no. 134.1. Air rifle^[75]

14-year-old boy sustained eye injury when he was shot in the eye with a BB from an air rifle shot by his 14-year-old friend. The friend pointed the BB gun at the plaintiff and pulled the trigger. The air rifle was owned by the plaintiff's family. The plaintiff and his friend testified they believed the rifle was empty. The boy and his family brought suit against the air rifle manufacturer. They claimed the rifle was a powerful and dangerous weapon, but nevertheless marketed for use by children. They also alleged that the BB gun had an unreliable feed system which caused users to believe the gun was empty when in fact it was loaded. The 14-year-old boy lost his eye from the accident.

1:179. Case no. 135. Handball

The plaintiff, a 17-year-old student, was playing team handball when he was struck in the eye with the ball. As a result he suffered a severe and permanent eye injury. Protective equipment, such as a face mask or goggles, would have prevented the injury.

1:180. Case no. 135.1. Baseball^[76]

14-year-old boy was pitching in a baseball game at baseball camp. The batter was approximately 20-25 feet away from the pitcher. The boy pitched the ball, the batter swung and the batted ball hit the boy in the face. The boy fell to the ground. The boy sustained serious facial injury.

1:181. Case no. 135.2. Revolver--Accidental discharge

Gentleman sustained catastrophic injuries when his revolver accidentally discharged, resulting in a bullet entering his brain. The revolver at issue was a notoriously defective Old Model single action revolver manufactured by the defendant gun manufacturer. It was called the Old Model because it was essentially devoid of safety devices that prevent or minimize the risk of accidental discharge. The New Model, manufactured and sold many years before this incident, contained safety devices that would have prevented this occurrence. Unknown to the plaintiff, years before this incident, defendant conducted a retrofit campaign to modify the Old Model to equip it with safety devices that would have prevented this incident. This patently defective revolver has been the subject of hundreds of lawsuits in which it has been alleged that the product caused death or catastrophic injury due to accidental discharge.

1:182. Case no. 135.3. Snowmobile

34-year-old man was seriously injured when the snowmobile he was riding flipped over without warning. At the time of the accident, the man was circumnavigating a very large field at a speed of approximately 30 MPH. He was thrown from his seat and the vehicle rolled on top of him with the engine running and the treads revolving against his body. The plaintiff claimed that the snowmobile was defective in that it flipped over while being operated at a slow, steady speed on a large, snow-covered field. The product was negligently designed and manufactured by the defendant in that the right front suspension and/or shock mount failed, causing my severe injuries. The snowmobile manufacturer also failed to provide any warnings regarding the front suspension and/or shock mount defect.

XIII. Allergic Reactions

1:183. Case no. 136. Soap powder

The parents of an infant boy gave him a bath in a tub with a strong cleaning agent. They had followed the directions on the container of soap grains. The soap is usually used by men and women accustomed to doing arduous manual labor. The boy has developed a severe dermatitis from the soap. The plaintiffs have alleged that the soap manufacturer negligently failed to warn of the danger of using the soap on the sensitive skin of a child, and the directions fail to warn against a use so closely akin to the recommended one.^[77]

1:184. Case no. 137. Laundry detergents

A fair haired, 22-year-old restaurant waitress bought two laundry products to wash her soiled uniforms. She bought them thinking that they would whiten and brighten her laundry, as the package advertisements promised. She did her wash and 12 days later showed symptoms of having intestinal flu. She had chills, a fever, and an itching and stinging in her vagina as well as all over her body. She gradually became worse and was hospitalized. She had developed a rash which was red, itchy and painful from her waist to her knees. She remained hospitalized for several weeks and was totally disabled for three months. After she was released, the doctors realized that the cause of her problem had been a severe allergic reaction to the detergents in her wash.^[78]

1:185. Case no. 138. Spray paint

A 30-year-old housewife with a history of asthmatic and allergic conditions, for which she had previously received treatment, including yearly hay fever shots, bought a can of spray paint to use on a metal cabinet in her kitchen. Following the directions on the label, she opened the kitchen door and windows, so that the work area was well ventilated. That evening the plaintiff suffered from tightness in the chest, and a week later she again developed tightness in the chest after spraying her cabinet a second time. Her complaints gradually worsened and she suffered an asthmatic syndrome aggravated by a chemical