498 S.W.3d 766
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2010, 13‑year‑old Jasmine Davis used Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine Anti‑Frizz Serum purchased at Wal‑Mart and then straightened her hair with a metal hot comb reheated on a gas stove; her hair ignited and she suffered severe burns and disfigurement.
- Plaintiffs (mother Lakesia Chandler individually and as next friend for Davis) sued Wal‑Mart (seller) and L'Oréal (manufacturer) alleging strict products liability (design/labeling defect and failure to warn), breach of warranty, negligent failure to warn, IIED, and seeking punitive damages.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting expert testing (Dr. Haussmann) showing the serum did not ignite hair under simulated conditions (comb up to 850°F) and identifying alternative ignition sources (charred wooden handle; open gas flame). Wal‑Mart also showed no notice of defects and no testing responsibility as retailer.
- Plaintiffs’ causation expert (Dr. Zeliger) relied on MSDS research and opinion but had not tested the actual comb/stove, did not inspect the charred handle, and could not reproducibly demonstrate ignition under the incident conditions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding plaintiffs failed to meet proof on proximate causation and on defect/warning sufficiency; plaintiffs timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the serum was defectively labeled/designed (strict liability) | Serum contains combustible/flammable components and lacked warnings; product ignited when heated | Testing shows serum did not ignite with hot comb; alternative ignition sources more likely | Summary judgment for defendants — plaintiffs failed to prove serum caused ignition |
| Whether failure to warn was negligent and proximately caused injuries | Absence of warnings about combustibility made use foreseeable and caused harm | Even if warning lacked, plaintiffs cannot show lack of warning was proximate cause given alternative ignition sources | Summary judgment for defendants — plaintiffs failed to meet proof on causation |
| IIED (outrage) based on marketing/sale without adequate warnings | Selling a product without warnings that foreseeably causes severe harm supports IIED | Plaintiffs cannot show defendants’ conduct caused the emotional distress because causation of physical harm is unproven | Summary judgment for defendants — dismissed for failure to prove causation (alternative rationale noted by trial court) |
| Breach of warranty and punitive damages | Product breached implied/express warranties; punitive damages justified by alleged reckless marketing despite risk | Plaintiffs must show breach proximately caused compensatory harm; punitive damages require actual damages — causation lacking | Summary judgment for defendants — warranty claims dismissed for lack of causation; punitive damages unavailable without compensatory damages |
Key Cases Cited
- McGhee v. Ark. State Bd. of Collection Agencies, 368 Ark. 60 (summary judgment standard and view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Southern Co., Inc. v. Graham, 271 Ark. 223 (plaintiff must prove product caused injury; causation requires more probable than not; no res ipsa in strict liability sense)
- West v. Searle & Co., 305 Ark. 33 (varieties of product defects: manufacturing, design, inadequate warnings)
- Bushong v. Garmen Co., 311 Ark. 228 (failure to meet proof with proof permits summary judgment)
- Hergeth, Inc. v. Green, 293 Ark. 119 (duty to warn and proximate‑cause requirement in negligent failure‑to‑warn claims)
- FMC Corp. v. Helton, 360 Ark. 465 (elements required to prove IIED/or outrage)
- E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Dillaha, 280 Ark. 477 (breach of warranty requires proximate causation)
- Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer, 2011 Ark. 518 (punitive damages require actual/compensatory damages)