## Facts

- A four-year-old child suffered severe burns when his T-shirt ignited while he was playing with matches.
- The child, through his father as next friend, sued the T-shirt’s manufacturer and seller under strict products liability, alleging a design defect.
- Trial evidence addressed the fabric’s flammability, the risk of burn injuries to children, feasible alternative designs or fabrics, consumer awareness of the danger of flammable children’s clothing, and the child’s and mother’s alleged lack of such awareness.
- Evidence showed the T-shirt’s fabric complied with applicable federal flammability standards.
- The trial court instructed the jury on “unreasonably dangerous” using only the consumer-expectation definition drawn from comment i to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
- The jury returned a defense verdict; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. In a strict-liability design-defect case under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, whether it is error to define “unreasonably dangerous” solely by the consumer-expectation test from comment i, without permitting consideration of risk-utility factors.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the manufacturer and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the jury instruction was erroneous because consumer expectations are not the exclusive measure of “unreasonably dangerous” in design-defect cases.
- The court required that the fact-finder be allowed to consider broader risk-utility factors, including whether a reasonably prudent manufacturer fully informed of the risks would market the product.
- Compliance with federal flammability standards was relevant evidence but not a complete defense and not dispositive of “unreasonably dangerous” design.

## Legal Principles

- Kentucky applies Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A strict liability: a seller may be liable for selling a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous even if the seller exercised all possible care.
- In design-defect strict-liability cases, “unreasonably dangerous” is not defined solely by whether the product is more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would contemplate.
- Consumer expectations are a factor, but the inquiry also includes risk-utility considerations such as the magnitude of risk, the feasibility of safer alternative designs, and the marketing choice of a fully informed, reasonably prudent manufacturer.
- Regulatory compliance may be considered in assessing design safety but does not, by itself, resolve whether the product is defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury was instructed with an overly narrow consumer-expectation definition of “unreasonably dangerous”; Kentucky design-defect strict liability requires consideration of consumer expectations together with risk-utility factors, including safer feasible alternatives and the decision of a fully informed prudent manufacturer to market the product.


Nichols v. Union Underwear Co., 602 S.W.2d 429 (Ky. 1980)