Plaintiff Files Product Liability Lawsuit Against Walmart Over “Exploding” Candle

A woman alleges that a Mainstays candle purchased from Walmart suddenly produced unusually high flames and exploded, causing second-degree burns.

A woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against Walmart after alleging that a Mainstays candle she purchased for approximately $4 suddenly became dangerously hot, produced unusually high flames, and exploded while she was attempting to move it to her kitchen sink.

According to the lawsuit, the candle had been burning for approximately an hour when the flames became high enough to leave soot on the ceiling. The woman alleges that the flames appeared to extend beyond the wick and ignite the wax. Concerned that the fire could spread throughout her home, she moved the candle toward the kitchen sink. She claims the candle then exploded, sending burning wax across the room and onto her thigh.

The woman alleges that she suffered second-degree burns as a result of the incident and contends that the candle was defectively designed or otherwise dangerously manufactured.

Quick Answer

A candle manufacturer or seller may potentially face a product liability claim when a product is alleged to be defective or unreasonably dangerous and that condition causes an injury. However, a retailer such as Walmart is not automatically liable simply because it sold the product. Illinois law provides specific rules concerning claims against nonmanufacturer sellers, including circumstances in which a retailer may seek dismissal after identifying the manufacturer. The precise facts and the applicable legal theory matter.

What Happened in the Alleged Candle Explosion?

The Candle Was Burning

The plaintiff alleges that she had been burning the Mainstays candle for approximately one hour.

The Flames Became Abnormally High

According to the lawsuit, the flames grew high enough to leave soot on the ceiling and appeared to involve the wax rather than simply the wick.

The Candle Was Moved to the Sink

The plaintiff says she moved the candle toward her kitchen sink because she was afraid the fire could spread through her home.

The Candle Allegedly Exploded

The lawsuit alleges that the candle exploded in the sink, sending burning wax through the room and onto the plaintiff’s thigh.

Reported Injury

2nd
Degree

The plaintiff alleges that the exploding candle caused second-degree burns to her thigh.

What Is Product Liability?

Product liability law allows an injured person to seek compensation when a product is alleged to have caused an injury because of a defect, an unsafe condition, inadequate warnings, or other legally recognized grounds.

In Illinois, strict product liability focuses on whether a product was unreasonably dangerous and whether that condition proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. Illinois pattern jury instructions explain that a product can be considered unreasonably dangerous when it is unsafe when put to a use that is reasonably foreseeable considering the nature and function of the product.
Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions: Strict Product Liability

The three common categories discussed in product liability litigation are design defects, manufacturing defects, and inadequate warnings or instructions. Different cases can involve one or more of these theories.

Design Defect

The product may be dangerous because of the way it was designed, meaning the problem exists across products made according to that design.

Manufacturing Defect

The product may differ from its intended design because something went wrong during manufacturing or assembly.

Failure to Warn

A product may be dangerous because consumers were not adequately warned or instructed about a known or reasonably foreseeable risk.

Was the Candle Allegedly Defective?

The plaintiff alleges that the Mainstays candle was defective because it became dangerously hot and was prone to producing flames that could cause the candle to explode. Those are allegations, not findings that the candle was actually defective.

Proving a product liability claim generally requires evidence connecting the product’s alleged defective or unreasonably dangerous condition to the injury. In a case involving an exploding candle, that can require an examination of the candle itself, the remaining wax and wick, the container, manufacturing information, warnings, instructions, testing, and other evidence.

Design of the Candle

Investigators may examine the candle’s container, wick, wax composition, dimensions, materials, and other design features to determine whether the design created an unreasonable risk.

Manufacturing Process

A particular candle could potentially have a manufacturing defect even if the overall product design is safe. Investigators may examine manufacturing records and other evidence to determine whether the product differed from its intended specifications.

Safety Warnings

The warnings provided with a candle can also become important. A lawsuit may examine whether the product included an adequate warning about the particular danger alleged by the plaintiff.

What Does “Reasonably Foreseeable Use” Mean?

A product manufacturer does not necessarily avoid liability simply because an injured person was not using a product in the exact way the manufacturer envisioned. Illinois product liability law considers whether the product was being used in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable given the nature and function of the product.
Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions: Strict Product Liability

Burning a household candle for its intended purpose would ordinarily be the type of use a manufacturer expects consumers to make of the product. Whether the particular conduct surrounding an alleged accident was reasonably foreseeable, however, is a fact-specific question.

Why This Matters

A plaintiff generally does not have to prove that a product was being used in a way that was completely predictable in every detail. The legal question focuses on whether the use was reasonably foreseeable in light of the product’s nature and function.

Can Walmart Be Sued If It Did Not Manufacture the Candle?

Walmart’s role as a retailer is important. A retailer can be named in a product liability lawsuit, but Illinois law does not treat every retailer as automatically liable simply because it sold a product.

Under 735 ILCS 5/2-621, a nonmanufacturer defendant in a product liability action generally must identify the manufacturer of the product. Once the manufacturer has been brought into the case and has answered or otherwise pleaded, the statute generally calls for dismissal of the certifying seller, unless an exception applies.

The statute contains exceptions, including situations in which the nonmanufacturer exercised significant control over the product’s design or manufacture, had actual knowledge of the defect, created the defect, or falls within another statutory category. The particular facts determine whether a retailer remains a defendant. ([ilga.gov](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext?DocName=073500050K2-621))

Manufacturer

The manufacturer is generally a central defendant in a product liability case because it designed, manufactured, or otherwise placed the product into the stream of commerce.

Retailer

A retailer such as Walmart may be named, but Illinois law provides a mechanism for a qualifying retailer to seek dismissal after identifying the manufacturer, subject to statutory exceptions.

Exceptions Matter

A retailer may remain involved when one of the statutory exceptions applies, including certain circumstances involving control, knowledge of the defect, or creation of the defect.

What If the Candle Came With Warnings?

The plaintiff reportedly acknowledged that the candle came with warnings but alleges that the warnings did not alert her to the danger she encountered. The existence of a warning does not automatically end a product liability claim.

In a failure-to-warn case, the adequacy of the warning can become a central issue. A manufacturer may argue that it provided an adequate warning, while a plaintiff may contend that the warning failed to disclose a material danger or did not adequately communicate the nature of the risk.

Was There a Warning?

The existence and wording of any warning should be documented and preserved.

What Did It Say?

The specific language used in the warning can matter when evaluating whether the consumer was adequately informed about the alleged danger.

Did It Address the Alleged Danger?

The issue may become whether the warning adequately addressed the particular risk that allegedly caused the injury.

What Evidence Can Be Important in a Candle Explosion Case?

Product liability cases often depend on physical evidence that can disappear or be altered over time. When a consumer product allegedly explodes, preserving the product and documenting the scene can be particularly important.

Preserve the Candle and Container

Do not discard the candle, container, wax, wick remnants, packaging, or other components that may help experts determine what happened.

Photograph the Scene

Photographs of the candle, ceiling soot, burn damage, surrounding room, injuries, and other physical evidence can help document the circumstances of the incident.

Keep the Packaging and Instructions

The original packaging, warnings, instructions, lot information, receipts, and photographs of the product labeling may become important evidence.

Document the Injury

Medical records, photographs of burns, emergency-room documentation, treatment records, and photographs showing the progression of the injury may help establish the extent of the harm.

Preserve Purchase Information

Receipts, transaction records, photographs of the store display, and information identifying the exact product can help establish where and when the product was purchased.

What Damages May Be Available in a Product Liability Claim?

A person injured by a defective or unreasonably dangerous product may seek compensation for legally recoverable losses caused by the injury. Depending on the circumstances, those losses may include medical expenses, lost income, physical pain, emotional distress, scarring, and diminished quality of life.

Medical Costs

Emergency treatment, burn care, medications, follow-up appointments, and other accident-related medical expenses may be recoverable.

Lost Income

Time away from work and other income-related losses caused by the injury may be included in a claim.

Pain and Suffering

Physical pain, emotional distress, and the effects of a serious burn injury may support a claim for noneconomic damages.

Scarring and Quality of Life

Permanent scarring, limitations, and changes to a person’s normal activities can be significant parts of a serious burn injury claim.

Why Product Liability Cases Can Be Complicated

Determining whether a consumer product was defective is rarely as simple as determining whether the product broke or malfunctioned. Investigators may need to determine whether the product’s design created an unreasonable danger, whether a particular unit was manufactured incorrectly, whether adequate warnings were provided, and whether the alleged defect actually caused the injury.

The evidence may involve the physical product, manufacturing records, testing data, warning labels, consumer complaints, product specifications, expert testimony, and information about similar incidents.

The Product Itself May Be Critical Evidence

In a suspected product defect case, preserving the actual product can be extremely important. An attorney or qualified expert may need to inspect the product before conclusions can be drawn about what caused the accident.

A Retailer Is Not Always the End of the Investigation

When an injury is caused by a consumer product, the investigation should identify everyone involved in placing the product into the stream of commerce. That may include the manufacturer, retailer, distributor, importer, designer, or another business.

In Illinois, 735 ILCS 5/2-621 establishes specific procedures for claims against nonmanufacturer sellers and provides exceptions under which a seller can remain a defendant. Identifying the manufacturer and determining each defendant’s role in the product’s design, manufacture, warnings, or sale can therefore be an important part of the case.
Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions: Strict Product Liability

Talk to a Springfield, IL Product Liability Lawyer

Patel Law, PC represents Illinois residents who have been injured by dangerous or defective products. Our attorneys can investigate the product, identify potentially responsible parties, preserve important evidence, and evaluate the circumstances of the injury.

Springfield personal injury lawyers

217-384-1111