## Facts

- Two-and-a-half-year-old Stephen Keller and two-year-old William Sperry played unsupervised in the Sperry home basement.
- The children obtained and used a gasoline can manufactured by Huffman Manufacturing Co. and purchased by William’s father at Welles Department Store.
- The can contained gasoline; the children poured gasoline near a gas furnace and hot water heater.
- The gasoline ignited, likely from pilot lights, and Keller suffered severe burns.
- Keller alleged the can lacked a child-proof cap or comparable safety device, making it defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous; Keller also alleged negligent design and sale by the manufacturer and retailer.
- After other defendants’ claims were settled, Keller proceeded against the manufacturer, the retailer, and William’s mother (not part of this appeal).

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim for strict products liability against the manufacturer and retailer based on a gasoline can sold without a child-resistant cap.
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim for negligence against the manufacturer and retailer for failing to design and sell a reasonably safe gasoline can.
3. Whether public policy barred liability as a matter of law at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order denying the manufacturer’s and retailer’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The complaint sufficiently alleged a strict liability claim by pleading a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous and a substantial factor in causing injury.
- The complaint sufficiently alleged a negligence claim based on foreseeability of child access to gasoline cans and the alleged availability of simple, low-cost safety measures.
- Public policy did not justify dismissal on the pleadings; those limitations required factual development.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences and dismisses only if no relief is possible under any provable set of facts consistent with the allegations.
- A strict products liability claim is adequately pleaded by alleging a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous, existed when the product left the seller, and was a substantial factor in producing injury.
- Manufacturers and retailers owe a duty of ordinary care to persons foreseeably endangered by product design and marketing; allegations of foreseeable risk and substantial-factor causation can state a negligence claim.
- Public policy limits on liability generally are not resolved on pleadings when the assessment depends on a developed factual record.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the case to proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged that selling a gasoline can without a child-resistant closure could constitute both a defective, unreasonably dangerous design and negligent conduct, and it was premature to deny liability on public policy grounds without evidence.


Keller v. Welles Dep’t Store of Racine, 88 Wis. 2d 24, 276 N.W.2d 319 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979)