BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » Supreme Court » 2011 » BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter

State: Texas

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: 09-0039

Case Date: 06/17/2011

Judge: Phil Johnson

Plaintiff: BIC Pen Corp.

Defendant: Carter

Preview:BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter Opinion Summary: Petitioner sued respondent after her son accidently set fire to her six-year-old daughter's dress with a J-26 model BIC lighter, alleging that the daughter's injuries were the result of manufacturing and design defects in the lighter. At issue was whether the design defect claim was preempted by federal law and the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that a design defect in the lighter was a producing cause of the fire that burned the daughter. The court held that the manufacturing defect claim was not preempted by federal law because the court of appeals found an alternative ground for liability, and the court need not determine whether a claim based solely on respondent's failure to comply with its internal specifications would be preempted. The court also held that petitioner presented legally sufficient evidence that the lighter did not meet manufacturing specifications but failed to prove that the deviation was a producing cause of the daughter's injuries. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment for respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-----------No. 09-0039 ------------

BIC Pen Corporation, Petitioner,

v.

Janace M. Carter, As Next Friend of Brittany Carter, Respondent

---------------------------------------------------On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas ----------------------------------------------------

Argued March 23, 2010

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2001720.html[8/20/2013 9:05:53 PM]

Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.

Justice Green did not participate in the decision.

Six-year-old Brittany Carter was burned when her five-year-old brother accidently set fire to her dress with a BIC lighter. The trial court entered judgment against BIC based on jury findings that the lighter was defectively designed and manufactured and that each of the defects caused Brittany's injuries. The court of appeals affirmed based on the defective design finding and did not reach BIC's other issues. BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter, 171 S.W.3d 657, 662 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi 2005), rev'd 251 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2008). In a prior appeal we held that the design defect claim was preempted by federal law and remanded the case to the court of appeals. BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter, 251 S.W.3d 500, 511 (Tex. 2008). The court of appeals then affirmed the trial court's judgment based on the manufacturing defect finding. ___ S.W.3d ___. We conclude that no evidence supports the finding that a manufacturing defect caused Brittany's injuries. We reverse and render judgment for BIC. I. Background Jonas Carter and his sister Brittany were playing when Jonas accidently set fire to Brittany's dress with a J-26 model BIC lighter (the Subject Lighter). Brittany was badly burned and Janace Carter, Brittany's mother, sued BIC as Brittany's next friend. Janace claimed that Brittany's injuries were the result of manufacturing and design defects in the Subject Lighter. A jury found that both types of defects were producing causes of Brittany's injuries. The trial court rendered judgment against BIC for actual and exemplary damages found by the jury. BIC appealed and the court of appeals affirmed. BIC Pen, 171 S.W.3d at 662. The appeals court held, in part, that the design defect claim was not preempted by federal law and the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that a design defect in the lighter was a producing cause of the fire that burned Brittany. Id. We granted BIC's petition for review, held that the design defect claim was preempted by federal law, and remanded the case for the court of appeals to consider the remaining issues. BIC Pen, 251 S.W.3d at 511. On remand the court of appeals concluded that Carter's manufacturing defect claim was not preempted by federal law, the jury's finding on that claim was supported by the evidence, the trial court did not err by giving a spoliation instruction, and there was no evidence BIC acted with malice. ___ S.W.3d at ___. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment as to actual damages and reversed and rendered as to exemplary damages. Id. BIC again petitioned for review, asserting that (1) Carter's manufacturing defect claim is preempted by federal law, and (2) Carter did not prove a manufacturing defect caused Brittany's injuries because there was no evidence (a) that the lighter varied from manufacturing specifications, (b) that the lighter was unreasonably dangerous, or (c) of causation. Carter filed a conditional petition for review, arguing that the court of appeals erred in reversing the award of punitive damages. We conclude that Carter's manufacturing defect claim is not preempted by federal law. We further conclude, however, that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding that a manufacturing defect caused Brittany's injuries. We first address BIC's assertion that Carter's manufacturing defect claim is preempted. II. Preemption A state law that conflicts with federal law is preempted and has no effect. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 747 (1981); BIC Pen, 251 S.W.3d at 504. State law may be preempted in three ways: (1)

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2001720.html[8/20/2013 9:05:53 PM]

expressly, by a federal law specifically preempting state law; (2) impliedly, by the scope of a federal law or regulation indicating Congress intended the federal law or regulation to exclusively occupy the field; or (3) impliedly, by the state law conflicting with a federal law or regulation to the extent it is impossible to comply with both or by the state law obstructing Congress's objectives as reflected by the federal law. BIC Pen, 251 S.W.3d at 504. A. Federal Standards In 1972, the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) created the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The CPSC is an independent regulatory body charged with (1) protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products, (2) developing safety standards for consumer products, and (3) promoting research and investigation into the cause and prevention of injuries. 15 U.S.C.

Download 2001720.pdf