Hollister v. Dayton Hudson Corp.

Laura Hollister (plaintiff) was wearing a 100-percent rayon shirt purchased at a department store owned by Dayton Hudson Corporation (Dayton Hudson) (defendant). While cooking, Hollister’s shirttail touched a hot electric-stove burner. The shirt ignited, severely burning Hollister. Hollister sued Dayton Hudson claiming negligence and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, specifically alleging (1) design defect because it was extremely flammable, and (2) failure to warn about the flammability. Hollister submitted a report from textile expert David Hall. Hall tested a shirt with fabric identical to Hollister’s shirt against 14 other samples. The shirt’s fabric ignited immediately and burned completely within six seconds. Only three other samples ignited, one rayon, one a rayon-polyester blend (both burned in 12 seconds), and a piece of newspaper, which burned in four seconds. Dayton Hudson’s expert tested the shirt remnants and found them to pass a flammability test codified in 16 C.F.R. § 1610. Hollister presented no evidence on a proposed alternative design. Had Hollister known of the extreme flammability, she would not have worn the shirt. Dayton Hudson moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, concluding that Hollister failed to establish a prima facie case for design defect and there was no duty to warn because of the obvious nature of the alleged defect. Hollister appealed.