Legal Opinion

Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 30, 2005No. 1-04-0218, 1-04-0219 consPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McNULTY

This case presents a straightforward question concerning the reach of tort law. When the defendant designed a product intended to create a flame, it did not incorporate available inexpensive technology to make the product child-resistant. A child got hold of the product and started a fire that led to her sister’s death. Should the court consider the design defective because it lacked child-resistant features? We find the evidence in the record sufficient to pose a factual question of whether the design is defective.

BACKGROUND

Susan Calles purchased an Aim ’n Flame lighting rod in March 1998.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
  2. Sollami v. EatonIllinois Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Lamkin v. TownerIllinois Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Rodney Todd, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Tiffany Todd v. Societe Bic, S.A., and Bic CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
  5. Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Deborah Johnson v. Edward Orton, Jr. Ceramic FoundationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2023
  4. Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2007
  5. Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2006

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API