PHILADELPHIA -- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion July 10 for summary judgment by Edizone, which was sued after a consumer suffered burns on his buttocks after using a product.
The court noted that Jeffery Tihansky, who sued Edizone, has multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis, which reduces his sensation. The plaintiff bought the Roll-N-Go Seat, also known as the Wondergel Cushion, that offers extra support when sitting. It touts that it’s “easy to roll up and take with you on the go,” according to the decision.
The issue for Tihansky came into play when he put the cushion on his scooter, then put the scooter in his van. He came back to the van to get his scooter (it’s not clear how much time had passed) and sat on the cushion. Because of his medical conditions, the suit alleges, he didn’t feel the sensation when he sat down. Still, it was long enough for Tihansky to suffer permanent injuries like second-degree burns on his buttocks, the suit alleges.
Tihansky sued for product liability and made allegations of strict liability, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose as well as negligence. Edizone responded with a motion for summary judgment with claims that it wasn’t the company that actually created, manufactured and marketed the cushion, among other arguments. The court ultimately disagreed and denied the defendant its motion.
For starters, the court determined Edizone couldn’t prove that it actually didn’t have a hand in marketing, selling and licensing the cushion. Meanwhile, the plaintiff presented a document that Edizone filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that proves the defendant had a licensing agreement with Purple Innovation, LLC, previously known as Wondergel, LLC.
Although the defendant said this is proof that the license agreement stopped it from developing and manufacturing the cushion around the date in question, the plaintiff added that Purple Innovation licensing the cushion does not mean the defendant was completely out of the loop with selling or marketing the item.
There is also a question of whether Edizone actually owed Tihansky the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. “Accordingly, summary judgment on [the] plaintiff’s claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose are denied,” the court ruled.
The court also agreed that the plaintiff did not act in bad faith when he destroyed the cushion, which later became a part of evidence. Considering all the evidence, the court denied Edizone’s motion for summary judgment.
U.S. District Judge Petrese B. Tucker ruled on the case.