## Facts

- Susan Calles purchased an “Aim N Flame” long-neck utility lighter about a week before a March 31, 1998 house fire.
- Calles left home briefly, leaving her 11-year-old daughter watching television and her three-year-old twins in bed.
- A fire investigator concluded one twin, Jenna (age 3), started a bedroom fire using the Aim N Flame.
- The lighter produced a flame when the user slid an ON/OFF switch to “on” and pulled a trigger.
- Jillian, the other twin, suffered smoke inhalation, was hospitalized, and died on April 21, 1998.
- Calles sued the lighter’s designer/manufacturer and distributor, alleging defective design because it lacked a child-resistant safety device that was available, inexpensive, and risk-reducing.
- Claims included strict liability and negligent design (implied-warranty claims were not pursued before the court; failure-to-warn was not at issue in this appeal).

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois recognizes a per se “simple product” exception that bars use of the risk-utility test for products deemed simple with open and obvious dangers, limiting plaintiffs to the consumer-expectation test.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on the strict-liability design-defect claim given evidence of feasible, low-cost child-resistant alternatives.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the negligent-design claim in light of disputed facts about reasonable care and foreseeable child access.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court declined to adopt a per se “simple product” exception to the risk-utility test.
- The court held that the open and obvious nature of a product’s danger does not categorically preclude risk-utility analysis.
- The court affirmed reversal of summary judgment on the strict-liability design-defect claim because evidence created triable fact questions under risk-utility (including feasibility and cost of child-resistant mechanisms).
- The court affirmed reversal of summary judgment on the negligent-design claim for similar reasons, finding disputed facts on reasonable care and foreseeability.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on strict liability and negligence design claims; dismissal of failure-to-warn and warranty theories remained undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois design-defect law permits proof of “unreasonably dangerous” design under either the consumer-expectation test or the risk-utility test.
- A product’s compliance with ordinary consumer expectations does not foreclose a design-defect claim where risk-utility evidence supports a finding that risks outweigh benefits.
- No categorical rule exempts “simple” products with obvious dangers from risk-utility analysis.
- Obviousness of danger is a factor in evaluating design reasonableness, but it does not negate duty or defect as a matter of law, particularly where foreseeable child access or misuse is alleged.
- Summary judgment is improper where evidence would allow reasonable factfinders to differ on defectiveness or negligence, including feasibility, cost, and effectiveness of safer alternative designs.

## Conclusion

The court held that Illinois law does not bar risk-utility analysis for “simple” products with obvious risks and that evidence of feasible, inexpensive child-resistant designs created genuine fact disputes, requiring trial on the strict-liability and negligent-design claims involving the utility lighter.


Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 247, 864 N.E.2d 249 (Ill. 2007)