5-5. Duty to Consumers. Terry Campbell, a six-year-old boy, placed a cigarette lighter under his shirt and lit the lighter. His shirt caught on re, causing him to suffer severe burns. Terry's mother, Mary Campbell, sued Bic Corp., the manufacturer of the lighter, for damages. Mrs. Campbell contended that the corporation had the capacity to produce cigarette lighters with child-resistant qualities and that its failure to do so was a design defect that made its lighters unreasonably dangerous. (Under strict product liability laws, if a design defect makes a product unreasonably dangerous, the manufac- turer and seller of the product may be held liable for any resulting injuries.) Bic sought to dismiss the complaint, claiming that it did not have a duty to design and manufacture child-resistant lighters because the lighters it manufactured were intended only for adult use. Bic cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which holds that manufacturers are subject to liability for physical harm caused to consumers by the manufacturers\" products only when the products are being used \"for the purposes and in the manner normally intended.\" Bic further argued that the risks associated with a lighter are open and obvious and that the corporation therefore should not be held liable. Should Bic be held liable for Terry Campbell's injuries, even though the lighter was not being used as intended? Discuss fully. [Campbett 0. BIG Corp., 586 N.Y.S.2d 871 (Sup.Ct., Fulton City. 1992)l