I do agree, I just see how it could happen. I've been around 2 year olds they need checking up on quite frequently seems like if you kid was on fire you should probably check on them. Not like 2 year olds usually have a habbit of stashing they're objects of attention, most the ones I've seen play with something till they're bored of it and drop it on the floor, seems like she should have noticed.

why the hell was a 2 year old able ot access a lighter?

The person suing deserves a well-placed dropkick in the face.

Edit: Eh, just read the story. Not sure how a court will tell if the lighter actually had a damaged child-proof thingy or not.

This is the part of the story that caught my attenttion..

If this is in fact the case then she has every right to sue.

Of course it's wrong that the child was able to access the lighter in the first place. I'm sure the mom will be re-visiting this guilt every day for the rest of her life.
That being said, if the manufacturer was negligent in making it child-proof, then they are just as responsible as the mother. I don't know many 2 year olds who can figure out how to push a button while striking the flint at the same time.

Both the Mother and Manufacturer are at fault. So this'll be a long case. May Jacob R.I.P.

If the model of lighter didn't have a safety feature I'm sure the manufacturer will attempt to settle, no one wants that kind of publicity, even if the mother was negligent its hard to convince the public she's to blame when you have a large company that saved money by cutting that corner.

Another case of the parents trying to point the finger at someone else for their own lack of responsibility and parenting thereof.

Now why is she suing the convenient store? Simply because they sold her the lighter I assume for endorsing such a harmful product I assume? So by that standard of logic she should be suing all convenient stores for doing the same thing.

It does not say what type of lighter it was. Whether it was a J-26 disposable or a Zippo makes a difference. If it's a disposable lighter than she may have some grounds only because the law is that disposable lighters are required to have a child safety feature on them. If it's a Zippo lighter she has no grounds at all.

Either way the unfortunate truth is that it was her own responsibility and negligence that caused her son's death. The response this mother is stirring up seems like her way of coping to distract herself from the truth and/or receiving some compensation for her loss.

Italiano has a point there.

Score one for the "My idiocy killed a loved one now I want revenge through frivolity" crowd.