Evidently, a substance is dangerous if it seems to be lethal above the client’s wishes (Miller and Gaylord 279). Susan Calles is the customer in this case since she is the intended consumer and beneficiary of the commodity (Calles v. Scripto Tokai Corporation). As a result, a corporation is not responsible for third-party liability. Susan Calles purchased the Aim ‘n Flame lighter with the intention of lighting her cooker while cooking (Calles v. Scripto Tokai Corporation). Susan had stated at the time of purchasing that the substance was free of flaws and could therefore be used for its intended purpose of producing the blaze (Calles v. Scripto Tokai Corporation). According to the summary judgment made by the trial court, Calles was aware of the dangers posed by the lighter and she ought to have taken sufficient precautions to prevent any harm (Calles v. Scripto Tokai Corporation). From the summary case, the lighter was not intended for the children, and hence this case could not pass for full trial since the magistrates looked at it from the buyer’s perspective and not from the child’s mindset.
Indeed, a product may be unreasonably dangerous if the manufacturer fails to make alternatives that would protect the user against possible harm. However, in this case, the product was simple and deadly in that Calles understood the risk that is associated with the product hence was a knowledgeable user (Calles v. Scripto Tokai Corporation). In this case, Scripto Tokai was not obligated to make a substitute for the product because the final user ultimately determined the safety of the lighter. Scripto is not liable for the claims filed by Calles estate since she already had established the dangers of using the lighter as opposed to a match stick (Miller and Gaylord 279). Children should not be engaged in cooking, and the company hence sold the product noting that the buyers would offer enough supervision and ensure that it is used by the right people and for the ideal purpose. Since Calles knew the danger that was associated with the lighter, she should have locked it in a safe place where the children would not access it. Calles carelessness, in this case, caused the fire and the eventual loss of her child, and she could not claim that Scripto was at fault for not modifying the product to be child-friendly.
How the Court should Rule
Following this case, it is evident that Scripto Tokai has been associated with many home fires that have occurred after using the lighter (Calles v. Scripto Tokai Corporation). In light of this case, the court should have set rules that the company could follow when manufacturing their product. It would have been imperative for the court to offer a directive to Scripto Tokai Company to modify their products so that it would be hard for children to use them. There was also need to ensure that the company had put enough warning on the product to remind the users of the inherent dangers associated with the lighter. The lighter, however, had passed the two strict products tests, the consumer application test and the risk utility test and hence there were no enough grounds for convicting Scripto Tokai (Calles v. Scripto Tokai Corporation). The court should hence rule that all users take precaution when using the products since the dangers linked to it are evident. It is hence of no use for the users to sue the manufacturers, yet they would have been careful and prevented the predicaments altogether.
FindLaw. Calles v. Scripto Tokai Corporation. Vol. 101089, 16 Feb. 2007.
Miller, Roger L. R, and Gaylord A. Jentz. Fundamentals of Business Law: Summarized Cases. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2013.