## Facts

- A six-year-old child visited a food and liquor store as an invitee.
- A gumball/prize machine on the premises dispensed a miniature “toy cigarette lighter” as a prize; the machine was owned and operated by a separate vendor.
- The child obtained the toy lighter from the machine and then bought lighter fluid from the store.
- While attempting to fill the toy lighter with the lighter fluid, the child set himself on fire and was injured.
- The complaint alleged negligence based on (i) offering cigarette lighters as prizes to children, (ii) selling lighter fluid to a minor, and (iii) failing to warn, remove the lighters, and properly maintain and inspect the machine and premises.
- The toy lighter was alleged (and treated by the court) as nonfunctional; the injury resulted from the child’s handling of lighter fluid rather than ignition by the toy.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged facts sufficient to establish a legally recognized duty owed by the gumball-machine operator and the store owner to the child, such that a negligence cause of action was stated.
2. Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that dispensing a nonfunctional toy lighter as a prize and selling lighter fluid to a six-year-old would result in the type of injury alleged, creating negligence liability.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court held the complaint did not allege facts establishing a duty of care owed by either defendant under Illinois negligence law.
- The court concluded the injury-producing event was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of dispensing the nonfunctional toy or selling lighter fluid in ordinary retail circumstances.
- Because duty was not established as a matter of law, allegations of breach and causation were insufficient to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- A negligence complaint must plead facts showing (1) a duty owed by defendant to plaintiff, (2) breach, and (3) injury proximately caused by the breach.
- Duty is a question of law informed by reasonable foreseeability of the type of harm and by practical and policy considerations regarding whether liability should attach.
- A common consumer product is not treated as inherently dangerous merely because it can cause harm if misused; absent additional allegations, selling such a product to a minor does not automatically create a duty giving rise to tort liability.
- Where the chain of events leading to injury is unusual and not reasonably foreseeable from the defendant’s conduct, Illinois courts will not impose a duty through negligence law.

## Conclusion

The court held that the pleaded facts did not show a legally cognizable duty because the child’s injury—arising from attempting to pour lighter fluid into a nonworking toy—was not a reasonably foreseeable result of dispensing the prize or selling lighter fluid, so dismissal for failure to state a negligence claim was proper.


Van Skike v. Zussman, 22 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 318 N.E.2d 244 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)