JOHNSTOWN – A Western Pennsylvania woman says she was severely burned by a defectively designed Instant Pot Programmable Electric Pressure Cooker two years ago, and has subsequently sued the device’s manufacturer.
Susan Stayrook of North Cambria filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 7 versus Instant Brands, Inc., of Kanata, Ontario, Canada.
In December 2018, Stayrook says she purchased an “Instant Pot Programmable Electric Pressure Cooker,” which specifically includes the Ultra 3-in-1 Mini component referred to in this suit.
“On or about Dec. 28, 2018, plaintiff suffered serious and substantial burn injuries as the direct and proximate result of the Pressure Cooker’s lid being able to be rotated and opened while the Pressure Cooker was still under pressure, during the normal, directed use of the Pressure Cooker, allowing its scalding hot contents to be forcefully ejected from the Pressure Cooker and onto plaintiff,” the suit states.
“The incident occurred as a result of the failure of the Pressure Cooker’s supposed ‘Built-In Safety Features’, which purport to keep the consumer safe while using the Pressure Cooker. In addition, the incident occurred as the result of defendant’s failure to re-design the Pressure Cooker, despite the existence of economical, safer alternative designs.”
The suit says the defendant’s pressure cookers “possess defects that make them unreasonably dangerous for their intended use by consumers because the lid can be rotated and opened while the unit remains pressurized”, which “put innocent consumers like plaintiff directly in harm’s way.”
“Defendant knew or should have known that its pressure cookers possessed defects that pose a serious safety risk to plaintiff and the public. Nevertheless, defendant continues ignore and/or conceal its knowledge of the pressure cookers’ defects from the general public and continues to generate a substantial profit from the sale of its pressure cookers, demonstrating a callous, reckless, willful, depraved indifference to the health, safety and welfare of plaintiff and consumers like her ,” according to the lawsuit.
“As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s intentional concealment of such defects, its failure to warn consumers of such defects, its negligent misrepresentations, its failure to remove a product with such defects from the stream of commerce, and its negligent design of such products, plaintiff used an unreasonably dangerous pressure cooker, which resulted in significant and painful bodily injuries upon plaintiff’s simple removal of the lid of the Pressure Cooker.”
For counts of strict liability, negligence, negligent design defect, negligent failure to warn, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the plaintiff is seeking damages as well as all costs of this action, interest and attorneys’ fees, to the full extent of the law, whether arising under the common law and/or statutory law, including: Compensatory damages for injuries, economic losses and pain and suffering, pre- and post-judgment, attorney’s fees, any other relief as this Court may deem equitable and just, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Paola Pearson of Anapol Weiss, in Philadelphia.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-00249
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com