Chandler v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc..dissent
2017 Ark. 103
| Ark. | 2017Background
- 13-year-old Jasmine Davis applied Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine Anti‑Frizz Serum, then used a metal straightening comb she periodically reheated on a gas stove; her hair and upper body ignited shortly after she began combing.
- Plaintiffs alleged the serum contained combustible/flammable ingredients (e.g., cyclopentasiloxane, dimethiconol, linalool, limonene) and that product testing showed treated hair could smoke/ignite when contacted by a hot comb; claims included strict product liability, breach of warranty, failure to warn, negligence, and IIED.
- Defendants (L’Oréal and Wal‑Mart) denied liability and asserted misuse; they moved for summary judgment relying on Davis’s deposition, a photo of the charred comb, and defense experts who could not replicate ignition under similar conditions.
- Plaintiffs submitted expert testimony (Dr. Zeliger) and manufacturer deposition excerpts indicating combustible components, low‑ignition constituents, foreseeability of hot‑comb use with the serum, lack of warnings, and reported adverse events.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeals affirmed. Justice Hart filed a dissent from the denial of review, arguing disputed facts and credibility issues made summary judgment inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist about causation (did serum ignite?) | Serum contains combustible/low‑ignition components; expert opines serum could ignite under temperatures produced by hot comb; Davis’s account supports causation | Defense experts couldn’t reproduce ignition; testimony suggests other causes (open flame, charred handle) and misuse | Court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants; dissent would find fact issues for jury |
| Proper standard for summary judgment review | Evidence raises fact issues; view evidence in light most favorable to non‑moving party | Court treated expert admissions and inability to prove under tests as dispositive | Dissent argues trial court applied too stringent standard, usurping jury role |
| Weight/credibility of expert testimony | Dr. Zeliger’s opinions, MSDS research, and product component analysis create triable issues | Defense experts’ test reports undermine plaintiff’s theory; plaintiff’s expert conceded limits | Court credited defense proof enough to grant summary judgment; dissent contends credibility resolves at trial |
| Effect of affirmative defenses (product misuse) on summary judgment | Foreseeable use (hot comb) and lack of warnings negate misuse defense as dispositive | Evidence shows alternative ignition sources and misuse, justifying dismissal | Court treated alleged alternative causes as undermining plaintiffs’ case and affirmed dismissal; dissent says these are credibility issues for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Broyles, 332 Ark. 189 (1998) (articulates that on summary judgment courts must view evidence in light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine only whether evidence raises a fact issue)
(Justice Hart’s opinion is a dissent from denial of review challenging the affirmation of summary judgment where she finds disputed facts and credibility questions appropriate for a jury.)