ALLENTOWN – Sunbeam Products denies in their totality the allegations made by a Berks County plaintiff that she was severely burned by a home heating pad it manufactured.
Zoraida Muniz-Escobar of Reading first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 22 versus Sunbeam Products, Inc., of Boca Raton, Fla.
“On or about April 14, 2020, plaintiff, Zoraida Muniz-Escobar, was using the aforesaid Sunbeam electronic Health at Home Heating Pad in an ordinary and reasonable fashion and on a low setting when, after 15 minutes of use, the subject product unexpectedly reached a dangerously high temperature, thereby causing the plaintiff to suffer severe burn injuries,” the suit stated.
“The subject product was designed, manufactured, apparently manufactured, developed, assembled, tested, inspected, promoted, marketed, licensed, distributed and/or sold by the defendant. Prior to the time of plaintiff’s accident, plaintiff purchased the subject product new and the subject product was in the same condition at the time of plaintiff’s accident as it was when it left defendant’s facilities, undergoing no subsequent alterations or modifications.”
The plaintiff said the defendant’s trademarks label the device and as such, the defendant could reasonably expect users to purchase the device in reliance upon the reputation associated with the manufacturer’s name.
“As a result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendant, plaintiff has suffered severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to, significant burn injuries to her low back/buttocks resulting in blisters and requiring wound care, scarring, and hip pain, as well as aches, pains, mental anxiety and anguish, and a severe shock to her entire nervous system,” per the suit.
“As a further result of the accident described herein, plaintiff has or may have suffered injuries resulting in the serious and/or permanent loss of use of a bodily function, dismemberment and/or scarring, which may be in full or part cosmetic disfigurements which are or may be permanent, irreparable and severe.”
UPDATE
Sunbeam Products filed an answer to the complaint on Jan. 22, charging, among other things, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.
“The product at issue was changed, altered or modified to a condition different from that in which it was when it left the care, custody and control of the manufacturer and/or retailer for which this defendant is not liable. The product at issue was abused, misused, improperly used, improperly maintained and/or damaged, subsequent to the time it left the care, custody and control of the manufacturer and/or retailer for which this defendant is not liable,” the defendant’s answer stated, in part.
“Insofar as plaintiff is making a claim under the Uniform Commercial Code, plaintiff failed to give defendant notice within a reasonable amount of time after they discovered or should have discovered any alleged breach of contract or warranty. That the damages sustained by plaintiff, if any, were solely or partly the proximate result of the plaintiff’s own negligence and/or comparative negligence.”
Sunbeam added it further “denies that it is guilty of any negligence or wrongdoing of any nature whatsoever, denies that it manufactured or sold any product that was in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous in any regard and specifically denies liability to plaintiff under any theory of law alleged in the complaint.”
For counts of strict product liability, negligence product liability and breach of warranty, the plaintiff is seeking damages not in excess of $150,000.
The plaintiff is represented by Brandon A. Swartz and Bryan Michael Ferris of Swartz Culleton, in Newtown.
The defendant is represented by James H. Heller of Cozen O’Connor, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-06430
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com