## Facts

- Penn Traffic Company (d/b/a Big Bear/Harts Stores) sold Lori McClung a children’s highchair manufactured by Cosco, Inc.
- Penn Traffic sold the chair pre-assembled and did not include the carton or instruction manual that would ordinarily accompany the product.
- The chair had a safety strap and had warnings on the chair back and the underside of the tray telling users to strap the child in and never leave the child unattended; similar warnings appeared on carton labels and in the manual that McClung did not receive.
- Cosco acknowledged it was expected that the chair might sometimes be sold without its box or manual.
- Matthew McConnell, age 11 months, was left by his parents in McClung’s care at McClung’s home.
- McClung placed Matthew in the highchair without strapping him in and left the room for several minutes.
- When McClung returned, she found Matthew trapped between the seat and the tray, with his neck caught in a position that nearly strangled him and cut off blood flow to his brain.
- Matthew survived but suffered permanent brain damage and partial paralysis, with a need for constant medical attention.
- Matthew and his parents sued Cosco and Penn Traffic in federal court (diversity), asserting Ohio statutory products-liability claims and negligence, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The complaint also sought damages for back injuries Mrs. McConnell allegedly suffered while caring for Matthew.
- Evidence indicated the chair was well made, and defendants moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs produced evidence that this particular highchair deviated from Cosco’s design or specifications, sufficient to support a manufacturing-defect claim under Ohio law.
2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed on design defect (including safer design possibilities and risk–utility considerations), precluding summary judgment for Cosco.
3. Whether the adequacy and placement of the warnings could be decided as a matter of law where the chair was sold without the carton and manual, and whether any failure to warn could be found to have caused the injury.
4. Whether the claims against Penn Traffic could proceed on compensatory theories of supplier/retailer liability even though Penn Traffic did not manufacture the chair.
5. Whether punitive damages could be pursued against Penn Traffic absent evidence meeting Ohio’s standard for punitive awards, and whether Mrs. McConnell’s separate back-injury claim had sufficient proof to go to a jury.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted on the manufacturing-defect claim.
- Summary judgment was granted on Mrs. McConnell’s back-injury claim.
- Summary judgment was granted for Penn Traffic on the punitive-damages claim.
- Summary judgment was denied in all other respects, leaving design-defect and failure-to-warn (and related negligence) claims for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturing-defect claim requires evidence that the specific unit departed from the manufacturer’s intended design or from other conforming units; without that product-specific deviation evidence, the claim fails as a matter of law.
- In Ohio products cases, design-defect questions commonly turn on fact disputes about the magnitude of the risk, the product’s utility, and whether other designs could have reduced the risk; those disputes generally must be resolved by a jury when supported by evidence.
- Warning adequacy is often a jury question, including whether warnings were sufficiently prominent, placed where users would see them, and communicated the relevant hazard; foreseeability that manuals and cartons may not reach the user can matter to that analysis.
- A user’s failure to follow instructions (such as not using a strap or leaving a child unattended) may bear on causation and comparative fault, but it does not automatically eliminate design-defect or warning claims at the summary-judgment stage.
- Under Ohio law, punitive damages require proof of aggravated misconduct (such as actual malice); a retailer’s ordinary conduct in selling a product, without more, does not justify punitive damages.

## Conclusion

The court narrowed the case by removing the manufacturing-defect theory, Mrs. McConnell’s independent back-injury claim, and punitive damages against the retailer, but it refused to end the litigation on summary judgment because the record left triable disputes about whether the highchair’s design and warnings were defective and whether those defects could have caused Matthew McConnell’s catastrophic injuries.


McConnell v. Cosco, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2D 970 (2003)