Lastly, I do not think Bic should be liable for defective design. While it is technically feasible to design child-resistant lighters, this does not mean every lighter without such a feature is defective or unreasonably dangerous. When evaluating product design defects, courts often consider whether the product's design is reasonably safe for its intended purpose. Bic's lighter was intended to produce a small, controlled flame for adult use, and it performed this function effectively. At the time, child-resistant lighters were not a market norm, and it would be unreasonable to impose liability for the absence of a feature that wasn't an industry standard or legally required.

Do you think Bic should be held liable for defective design? Why or why not?