Quick Answer: Age warnings matter in children’s product safety because courts use them to evaluate foreseeability, warning adequacy, and manufacturer liability when a child is injured by a product.

Children’s products are designed around highly specific developmental assumptions. When those assumptions are wrong, or when age warnings fail to match real-world use, serious injuries can occur. In product liability law, age warnings are not merely suggestions; they are often central to determining whether a manufacturer fulfilled its legal duty to protect children from foreseeable harm.

Courts consistently examine age warnings when deciding whether a children’s product was unreasonably dangerous.

From a legal standpoint, age warnings are intended to:

• Define the scope of intended users
• Alert caregivers to risks children cannot appreciate
• Limit foreseeable misuse
• Satisfy warning obligations under product liability law

However, warnings do not eliminate liability if a product remains dangerous during foreseeable use.

In McPherson v. Fisher-Price, Inc., parents alleged that an infant sleeper caused positional asphyxia despite age labeling and usage instructions. The manufacturer argued that it complied with age recommendations and warnings.

The court rejected the idea that age warnings alone insulated the manufacturer from liability. Instead, it focused on whether:

• The risk of suffocation was foreseeable
• The product design allowed dangerous sleep positioning
• Warnings adequately communicated the severity of the risk

In Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a child was injured by a toy labeled for an older age group. The defense argued that misuse outside the stated age range barred recovery.

The court disagreed, emphasizing that:

• Children commonly play with siblings’ toys
• Age crossover was foreseeable
• Marketing imagery suggested broader use

Courts regularly hold that manufacturers cannot rely on warnings when:

• A safer design could have eliminated the risk
• The product’s appearance invites younger children
• The hazard is severe and not intuitively understood

In children’s product cases, courts recognize that caregivers cannot monitor every moment of use, making reliance on warnings alone legally insufficient.

A children’s product may be defective due to:

• Warning defects (unclear or misleading age guidance)
• Design defects (product unsafe even with warnings)

Courts often ask whether the manufacturer improperly shifted safety responsibility onto caregivers rather than addressing the risk through design.

In evaluating age warnings, courts and regulators frequently rely on:

• Consumer injury databases
• Recall histories
• Prior incident reports

Repeated injuries involving younger children can demonstrate that age warnings failed to prevent foreseeable harm, increasing liability exposure.

Because children cannot assume risk, courts apply stricter standards when evaluating:

1. Warning adequacy
2. Foreseeability of misuse
3. Manufacturer decision-making

Age warnings are scrutinized more closely than in adult product cases, particularly when injuries are catastrophic or fatal.

Age warnings are a critical safety and legal tool, but they are not a liability shield. Courts repeatedly hold manufacturers responsible when children are injured despite age labeling—especially when risks were foreseeable and safer designs were available.