Opinion ID: 1743425
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was there an alternative design?

Text: BIC's final ground offered in support of its motion for a directed verdict is that the evidence was insufficient to show that an enhanced child-resistant feature on BIC lighters would have prevented this incident. When moving for a directed verdict in the trial court, BIC stated: There's not been a shred of evidence on whether the newer lighter they're claiming should have been on the market would have stopped the fire, prevented the accident. This Court considered the liability of a manufacturer of cigarette lighters in Bean v. BIC Corp., 597 So.2d 1350 (Ala.1992) (BIC I) , where this Court reversed a summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer because (1) the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the manufacturer had a duty to offer the public a child-resistant lighter; (2) the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the danger posed by the lighter was open and obvious; and (3) the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the warnings on the lighter and its packaging were adequate. The same parties returned in BIC Corp. v. Bean, 669 So.2d 840 (Ala.1995) ( BIC II ), after a trial and the entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. In BIC I, this Court described the scope of a manufacturer's legal duty as being dependent upon two factors: (1) the foreseeability of the danger; and (2) the feasibility of an alternative design that averts that danger. Id. at 1352. (Emphasis added.) See also Townsend v. General Motors Corp., 642 So.2d 411, 418 (Ala.1994), where this Court stated that, under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, the plaintiff must prove that a safer, practical, alternative design was available to the manufacturer ... that ... would have ... eliminated or in some way reduced the plaintiff's injuries. BIC first began manufacturing lighters with child-resistant features in 1991 or 1992. According to the testimony of BIC's experts, teaching a child to use a lighter through instruction, as opposed to the child's learning through nonverbal demonstration or observation, presents significant problems in designing and developing more child-resistant lighters. Once a child is taught to roll and press so as to ignite the lighter, the operation of BIC model 7 with an enhanced child-resistant feature becomes relatively simple, for it requires only that the user engage a latch before beginning the roll-and-press ignition step. In other words, the roll-and-press ignition step is the more difficult function to master and, once that step is learned through instruction, the engagement of the latch, a comparatively simple step that requires no special timing or coordination, enables the user to ignite the lighter. BIC contends that its evidence indicated that a child-resistant feature is ineffective once a child has been taught to ignite a roll-and-press lighter, and that that evidence was never rebutted. BIC, relying upon BIC I, contends that the record contains no substantial evidence indicating that the alternative design would have prevented the incident involved in this case such evidence, BIC says, is an essential factor on which a manufacturer's duty is dependent. However, Dontavious denied that he had been taught to use a lighter. If the jury accepted his testimony, any inadequacy in the plaintiff's expert testimony, limited to the feasibility of a child-resistant lighter in the hands of a child who had not been taught to use a lighter, becomes immaterial. We conclude that the trial court properly rejected BIC's argument that it was entitled to a directed verdict on the basis that the plaintiffs evidence of the feasibility of an alternative design was insufficient.