Flammable Fabrics

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission every year over 4,0000 consumers suffer severe burns and an estimated 150 die when their clothing ignites In 1954, the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA)[1] was enacted to, “reduce the danger of injury and loss of life by providing on a national basis standards for testing and rating the flammability if textiles for clothing use."[2] However, the standards developed under the FFA do not, necessarily, reduce the risk of flammability. For example, the majority of fabrics pass the Class I standards but newspaper and tissue paper also pass this test.[3]

The Flammable Fabrics Act does have any private enforcement provisions, and does not prevent flammable substances from being marketed. Similarly, the FFA provides no private relief for those harmed in accidents involving flammable fabrics. Note that compliance with the FFA is not conclusive evidence a product is not defectively designed, although such compliance does constitute strong and substantial evidence of non-defective design.[4]

The testing process is fairly straight-forward. Under specified conditions, a two- by six-inch specimen of the fabric is stretched over a rack in a special draft-proof chamber at a forty-five degree angle of inclination. A standard flame is exposed to the base of the fabric. Both the number of seconds it takes the fabric to ignite and the number of seconds it takes the six-inch specimen to burn are measured. To meet the highest grade under this standard normal flammability the time to ignite the specimen must be at least one second and the time to burn the six-inch strip must be at least 3.5 seconds.

The Washington Products Liability Act (WPLA)[5] establishes a design defect theory under which an injured person may seek relief[6] Under a design defect claim, the plaintiff must show that the likelihood that the product would cause the harm and that harm outweighed the burden on the manufacturer to design a product that would have prevented that harm.[7]

One example of this type of claim is Patterson v. Central Mills, Inc.,[8] where the Court held, “Central Mills's argument that all ordinary clothing is combustible and will burn when exposed to an open flame does not address plaintiffs' design defect claim. Plaintiffs are not arguing that the t-shirt should not catch fire. Rather, plaintiffs are claiming that the t-shirt ignited too quickly, was consumed by flames too rapidly, and was too difficult to extinguish, making its design defective."[9]

Clothing flammability claims are expert intensive and should be thoroughly investigated before commencing suit. The government flammability tests are not dispositive, and the plaintiff must ensure that the garment is “unreasonably" flammable.

Matthew King is with Tewell & King and his practice emphasizes products liability, tort, environmental and land use litigation. He can be reached at (206) 623-2369 or at matthewking@abanet.org.

---