PITTSBURGH – Both Trader Joe’s and the manufacturer of a frozen enchilada have denied liability for injuries a local woman alleged she suffered, when she ingested glass shards while eating one of those enchiladas she purchased from her local Trader Joe’s grocery store.
Jessie Tait of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 25 versus Trader Joe’s Company of Monrovia, Calif. and La Flor de Mexico, Inc. of Baldwin Park, Calif.
“Two or three days prior to Sept. 13, 2022, Ms. Tait had purchased a frozen cheese enchilada from Trader Joe's in McCandless, Pennsylvania. The package indicated that it was sold and distributed ‘exclusively for Trader Joe’s.’ On Sept. 13, 2022, at approximately 6:50 p.m., Ms. Tait was preparing for an evening of work, which normally starts with dinner. She pulled the cheese enchilada from the freezer, followed the instructions on the package and sat down to eat. Roughly 10 minutes after beginning preparation of the frozen dinner, she took her first bite of food and began chewing and swallowed,” the suit stated.
“She took a second bite and felt pain on her tongue and roof of her mouth, and heard and felt crunching in her teeth. She instinctively swallowed, but then felt pain in her throat. It was then that she realized she had ingested pieces of glass shards from within the enchilada. Ms. Tait pressed her fork to the bottom of the food pan and felt a high pitch crunching, leading her to the conclusion that additional glass was still in the enchilada tray. She then spit out any food that remained in her mouth, and rinsed her mouth of the ground glass remnants.”
The suit added that Tait, “concerned that this could be a larger problem than just the one package, called Trader Joe's customer service line to alert them of the issue, gave them the lot number to trace, and also let them know she would be seeking medical treatment because of the glass in her frozen enchilada.”
“Ms. Tait notes that the phone call was placed at 7:11 p.m. and lasted three minutes. Following the phone call with Trader Joe's, she took the rest of the enchilada and put it back in its original wrapping, and then placed it in a resealable freezer bag to preserve the product. Ms. Tait continued to experience pain and burning in her mouth, throat and tonsils and it was worsening to the point where she sought medical attention. Ms. Tait got in her car and drove to the Emergency Department at UPMC Passavant, arriving at around 7:30 p.m. While in the ER, she started having sharp pains in her upper GI, so CT scan was performed. She remained in the ER with increasing pain until after midnight, missing her entire night of work and income,” the suit said.
“Ms. Tait was eventually discharged and sent home on a soft food diet with instructions to watch for signs of internal bleeding and to follow-up with her family doctor. The billed charges for the ER visit totaled $9,687.25. The following day, Ms. Tait could feel sores on the roof of her mouth, gums and tongue, which persisted for the next few days. Ms. Tait also missed another night of scheduled night of work on Sept. 14, 2022. Ms. Tait continued to experience sharp and stabbing pain and swelling in her abdomen, with noticeable gastric swelling from the glass irritation. Ms. Tait noticed her abdomen to be distended and hard for about 10 days after the incident, with accompanying nausea and pain after ingesting the glass in the frozen enchilada.”
About a week after the Emergency Room visit, Tait said she went to see her Primary Care Physician, Lauren Alderwald, M.D. for follow-up.
“Ms. Tait informed Dr. Alderwald of the occurrence and her recent symptoms associated with ingesting the glass, and Ms. Tait was cautioned to watch for signs of internal bleeding, either vomiting or in her stool. As a direct result of the defendants’ negligence and carelessness, plaintiff suffered severe bodily injuries as described hereinabove,” the suit said.
“As a direct result of the defendants’ negligence and carelessness, plaintiff has suffered the following damages: Great pain, suffering and inconvenience, loss of the ability to enjoy the pleasures of life, emotional distress, embarrassment and anxiety, scarring and/or disfigurement, lost income and medical and out-of-pocket expenses. Some or all of Ms. Tait’s injuries and damages are permanent in nature.”
UPDATE
Counsel for the defendants filed similar answers on Dec. 8 and Dec. 13, respectively, which denied the plaintiff’s substantive allegations and provided new matter.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To the extent discovery reveals, defendant asserts that some or all of plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages are solely the result of pre-existing conditions and/or were caused by subsequent events; the injuries were not caused or exacerbated by the event complained of. To the extent that plaintiff suffered any physical injury as a result of the subject incident, but failed to act reasonably to mitigate such injuries and damages by inter alia, neglecting to pursue concerted and appropriate medical care and treatment, plaintiff’s failure to reasonably mitigate damages diminishes the right to recover. To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiff’s claims are barred or reduced by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction and/or set off for any monies advanced prior to trial of the subject action. To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiff’s claims are barred, limited or restricted by the doctrines of contributory negligence, comparative negligence, last clear chance and/or assumption of risk. Plaintiffs’ claims as alleged are excessive and unreasonable,” per the defense’s new matter.
“To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations governing the timely bringing of their claim. To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiffs’ claims are barred for failure to join an indispensable party, including but not limited to the minor plaintiff’s mother. To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiffs’ claim are barred and should be dismissed or limited pursuant to the laches doctrine, exploitation and plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the claim in a timely manner, all to the detriment of defendants’ ability to defend against the claim. To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiffs’ claims are barred and should be dismissed or limited pursuant to the doctrines of lis pendens, collateral estoppel, and/or res judicata. To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiffs’ claims are barred or diminished by the intervening or superseding negligence of third-parties known or unknown. To the extent that one or more of plaintiffs’ claims are duplicative, they should be dismissed under the single recovery doctrine.”
For two counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking a trial by jury and damages in excess of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs of suit.
The plaintiff is represented by David J. Miller of the Law Offices of David J. Miller, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Nicholas J. Zidik of the Law Offices of Asad U. Khan, in Wexford.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-008972
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com