## Facts

- Fifteen-month-old Matthew Metzgar died from asphyxiation after choking on a small cylindrical wooden Playskool building block while in his playpen.
- Matthew’s father left him unattended for about five minutes and returned to find the block lodged in Matthew’s throat; emergency efforts failed.
- The block was the smallest in a 49-piece set of brightly colored wooden blocks.
- The product packaging prominently stated an age guideline, “Ages 1-1/2 — 5,” and contained no choking-hazard warning.
- The block’s size and shape satisfied applicable federal consumer product safety regulations and an industry toy-part standard.
- Matthew’s parents, as estate administrators, sued the manufacturer (Playskool) and retailer (K Mart) under Pennsylvania law for negligent design, strict-liability design defect, strict-liability failure to warn, and negligent failure to warn.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, reasoning (1) the choking risk was statistically too small to support negligent design, (2) the age guideline made Matthew an unintended user for strict liability, and (3) choking was an obvious danger defeating failure-to-warn theories.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on negligent design where the district court concluded the choking risk was too statistically low to permit a finding of unreasonable design under risk–utility balancing.
2. Whether the age guideline “Ages 1-1/2 — 5” conclusively barred strict-liability claims by treating a slightly younger child as outside the class of intended users as a matter of law.
3. Whether choking on the block was an obvious danger as a matter of law, eliminating any duty to warn and justifying summary judgment on negligent and strict-liability warning claims.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the negligent-design claim presented genuine disputes of material fact under a risk–utility analysis and could not be resolved as a matter of law based solely on low reported incident frequency.
- The court held that the age guideline was not an absolute cutoff for “intended user” status; whether a child slightly younger but developmentally within the stated range was an intended/foreseeable user was for the factfinder.
- The court held that the obviousness of the choking hazard and the existence and adequacy of any warning were fact questions; regulatory compliance was relevant but not dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- In product-negligence design claims applying a risk–utility framework, low statistical incidence does not, by itself, foreclose a finding of unreasonable danger; competing evidence about likelihood, severity, and safer alternatives commonly creates jury questions.
- For Pennsylvania strict-liability analysis, age ranges on children’s products may function as guidance rather than a definitive legal boundary; intended use and user status may depend on how an ordinary consumer would use the product and on foreseeability in context.
- Failure-to-warn claims generally turn on fact-intensive determinations, including whether a risk is obvious to ordinary consumers and whether a warning was required and adequate.
- Compliance with federal regulations and industry standards is admissible evidence on defect and warning issues but does not automatically establish non-defectiveness or eliminate a duty to warn.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that disputes about the product’s design risk under risk–utility balancing, the effect of the packaging age guideline on intended users, and the obviousness of the choking hazard required factfinding, making summary judgment improper on the design-defect and failure-to-warn claims.


Metzgar v. Playskool Inc., 30 F.3d 459 (3d Cir. 1994)