## Facts

- Edwina Lovelace bought a compact “mini” hair dryer from a Jackson, Mississippi retailer in late 1973 for her son, Terry Lovelace; no specific brand was requested.
- The dryer was used primarily by Terry and was allegedly left plugged in (but not operating) when the Lovelace home caught fire on February 10, 1974, causing severe property damage.
- John E. Lovelace, Jr. alleged the fire was caused by a defect in the hair dryer.
- About 18 days after the fire, Lovelace was diagnosed with extremely high blood pressure, later underwent coronary bypass surgery, and claimed permanent disability; he attributed these injuries to the fire.
- Astra Trading Corp. did not manufacture the dryer but imported and distributed roughly 48,000 units, including units sold through the retailer; the dryers were sold under Astra’s “Stellar” trademark.
- Astra provided design/specifications, used a Far East agent (Chaun Ching Co.) for supply, and performed random sample checks.

## Issues

1. Whether Mississippi strict products liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A) permits recovery by a foreseeable bystander who was not the product’s user or consumer.
2. Whether, if strict liability is available, damages may include personal injuries allegedly caused by the fire, not merely property damage.
3. Whether a non-manufacturing importer/marketer selling a product under its own trademark can avoid strict liability or related duties as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court denied Astra’s motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court held that Mississippi strict liability principles could extend to foreseeable bystanders, not only users and consumers.
- The court allowed Lovelace to pursue both property damage and personal injury damages, leaving causation and foreseeability for trial.
- The court rejected Astra’s contention that its non-manufacturer status barred strict liability as a matter of law, treating Astra as a seller within the chain of distribution based on its importing, specification, and branding role.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability under § 402A may apply to foreseeable bystanders when injury results from an unreasonably dangerous defective product placed into commerce.
- Entities in the business of marketing a product, including importers and trademark distributors, may be treated as sellers in the distribution chain for strict-liability purposes.
- On summary judgment, issues of foreseeability, proximate cause, and the causal relationship between an alleged defect, a resulting fire, and subsequent personal injuries generally present fact questions for the trier of fact.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the case to proceed on strict-liability and negligence theories, holding that Mississippi law could allow a foreseeable bystander to sue an importer/marketer in the distribution chain and to seek personal-injury damages, with causation and foreseeability reserved for trial.


Lovelace v. Astra Trading Corp., 439 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Miss. 1977)