Cases That Made A Difference

Flammable Children's Pajamas Taken Off Market

A manufacturer of children's pajamas, the fabric of which was 100 percent untreated cotton flannelette, stopped making the highly flammable garment after a Minnesota jury ordered the company to pay compensatory and punitive damages to a 4-year-old girl who had been badly burned when her pajama top caught fire.

The child was injured when she reached across an electric stove to shut off a timer. Her pajama top instantly ignited and she suffered second- and third-degree burns over her upper body. Her scars are permanent and she has required several skin grafting procedures.

The Minnesota Supreme Court, in upholding the jury award of $750,000 for compensatory damages and $1 million for punitive damages, held that the manufacturer was "uniquely aware" that its product was highly flammable. The court noted that pajamas made of newsprint burned only slightly faster than the flannelette pajamas. The company was well aware of the garment's flammability since several other claims had been filed against it by consumers who had been injured in fires.

The court quoted one top company official as saying that the company was "always sitting on somewhat of a powder keg" concerning the product's flammability. Another company official acknowledged that flannelette was not treated with flame-retardant chemicals because of costs, even though the court noted that such treatment would have been economically feasible.

Although the manufacturer complied with the then-existing standards of the federal Flammable Fabrics Act, the court held that the company was not insulated from punitive damages since it knew the flammability test required by the Act was unreliable. The Act has since been amended to provide for more stringent regulation of fabric in children's sleepwear.

Gryc v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 297 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. 1980), cert. denied, 101 S. Ct. 320 (1980).