Walker v. Macy's Merch. Grp., Inc.
288 F. Supp. 3d 840
E.D. Ill.2017Background
- Plaintiff Norma Walker was severely burned when her Macy's velour jacket (80% cotton/20% polyester) ignited while she was cooking; her polyester/cotton sleepwear (recipient of earlier purchase from Walmart and made by Komar) later ignited from the jacket flames. Both garments lacked flammability warnings.
- Testing: Sleepwear passed adult flammability test (16 C.F.R. §1610) but failed children's standard (16 C.F.R. §§1615–16); jacket fabric tested on same-fabric sample ignited and burned rapidly under §1610 testing and failed §§1615–16 tests per plaintiff experts.
- Plaintiff asserted strict products liability (design and failure to warn), negligence, and implied/express warranty claims against Macy’s, Walmart, and Komar; plaintiff withdrew express-warranty and manufacturing-defect claims and some defendants invoked statutory protections for non-manufacturers.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment: Court granted summary judgment to Walmart and Komar (all claims dismissed) principally for lack of proximate cause as to the sleepwear; Macy’s motion was granted in part and denied in part.
- Court allowed plaintiff’s experts (fire protection engineer and burn-injury biomedical engineer) for summary-judgment opposition under Daubert/Rule 702; relied on their opinions for foreseeability, comparative flammability, and injury severity analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict liability — design defect (Macy’s jacket) | Jacket design/fabric is unreasonably dangerous: ignites easily, burns intensely/rapidly; safer, feasible alternatives (polyester/nylon or different construction) existed at similar cost | Jacket complied with federal adult flammability standard (§1610); consumers expect clothing can burn; benefits (style/comfort) justify design | Denied summary judgment as to Macy’s: genuine factual disputes exist under consumer-expectation and risk-utility analyses (alternatives, foreseeability, severity, and public unawareness) |
| Strict liability — failure to warn (Macy’s jacket) | No warnings were provided; consumers do not appreciate the jacket’s propensity for rapid, intense burning; warnings used in industry show alternatives | No duty to warn of an obvious danger (fire); no evidence plaintiff would have read/heeded any warning | Granted summary judgment for Macy’s: plaintiff failed to show she would have read/heeded a warning and produced no specific warning that would have prevented injury |
| Strict liability & negligence — sleepwear (Walmart/Komar) causation | Sleepwear contributed materially by increasing fuel load and accelerating burn intensity/spread, causing greater injury | Sleepwear never contacted stove; jacket ignited first and was proximate cause; no foreseeable risk that another garment would ignite the sleepwear | Granted summary judgment for Walmart and Komar: no proximate cause — only speculation that sleepwear materially caused injury when jacket ignited it |
| Implied warranty of merchantability (Macy’s) | Jacket unfit for ordinary purpose due to dangerous flammability characteristics and available safer alternatives | Jacket fit ordinary purpose of clothing; compliance with standards supports merchantability | Denied summary judgment as to Macy’s implied-merchantability claim: evidence overlaps with design-defect proof and raises triable issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard; jury role)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (expert admissibility/Rule 702 gatekeeping)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 2008) (elements of strict products liability and methods to prove design defect)
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 955 N.E.2d 1138 (Ill. 2011) (risk-utility test and negligent-design duty; post-sale warning discussion)