Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter
Supreme Court of Texas
346 S.W.3d 533 (2011)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
When Brittany Carter (plaintiff) was six years old, her brother Jonas, who was five years old, lit her dress on fire with a lighter manufactured by Bic Pen Corporation (Bic) (defendant). Carter brought a manufacturing-defect suit against Bic. The Bic lighter was not designed to be childproof, but rather had five components designed to make it child resistant. Thus, even a lighter manufactured perfectly within Bic’s design specifications could still be operated by a small percentage of children. Carter presented evidence that two of the five child-resistant components in the lighter at issue deviated slightly from design specifications. Witnesses discussed several human abilities, some cognitive based and some force based, that would enable a child to operate a Bic lighter. The two design components in Carter’s lighter that deviated from manufacturing specifications involved the amount of force required to operate the lighter. Carter presented evidence that Jonas was cognitively delayed, but presented no evidence with respect to any deficiency in Jonas’s physical abilities. The trial court found that the lighter did not meet manufacturing specifications, and found in favor of Carter. The court of appeals affirmed. Bic appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.