PITTSBURGH – Target Corporation is looking to dismiss punitive damages from litigation brought by the mother of a two-year-old girl burned by an allegedly faulty Instant Pot pressure cooking device.
N.G. (a minor, and through Brittany Gonzalez, her parent and natural guardian) and Brittany Gonzalez of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 8 versus Instant Brands, Inc. of Kanata, Ontario, Canada and Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minn.
The suit explained that Instant Brands advises their customers that they should not be afraid of the device, it will not explode and there is no way to open the pressure cooker when it is activated – all claims that it said are false.
“On Aug. 18, 2020, Brittany Gonzalez purchased an Instant Pot, ‘Smart Wifi’ model, from the Target store at 600 Cahuvet Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15275. More specifically, on Sept. 18, 2020, Brittany Gonzalez was making soup in the Instant Pot. After adding her desired ingredients, Brittany Gonzalez properly closed the lid and began the cooking process, setting the timer for 60 minutes,” the suit said.
“Once the cooking process was completed, Brittany Gonzalez saw an error message on the screen stating ‘burn.’ Consistent with her understanding of the functionality of the Instant Pot, Brittany Gonzalez released the pressure valve. After she believed the pot was no longer under pressure, she began to take off the lid.”
At that time, Brittany Gonzalez began to take off the lid, during which she used no alleged force, and “the lid came off with ease, the lid shot open with great force, spewing the scalding hot contents of the cooker into plaintiffs’ kitchen, making contact with minor plaintiff N.G., who was on a nearby chair.
“As soon as the scalding hot contents of the Instant Pot contacted minor plaintiff N.G., she screamed in pain. Brittany Gonzalez immediately noticed that her daughter had suffered serious burns and called 9-1-1. Minor plaintiff N.G. was taken to Mercy Hospital, where her burns were treated,” per the suit.
“As a direct and proximate result of defects in the Instant Pot, minor plaintiff N.G. sustained third-degree burns to her face, neck, chest, left shoulder, anterolateral left arm, and radial left forearm, requiring significant debridement and/or skin grafting.”
UPDATE
Target filed a brief in support of its seeking to dismiss punitive damages from the case on July 12, finding that the plaintiffs “failed to plead facts sufficient to meet the standard for the award of punitive damages under Pennsylvania law.”
“Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts in their complaint sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages against Target. Notably, plaintiffs’ complaint only avers that the Defendants collectively knew or should have known of the claimed defect contained in Instant Pots and the alleged risk of harm this claimed defect posed to the public. The complaint is completely devoid of any supporting facts as to how each individual defendant acquired and had this alleged knowledge,” the brief stated.
“Plaintiffs failed to plead any facts as to the specific knowledge Target had of the alleged defect and the risks allegedly associated with this defect. Importantly, there are absolutely no facts in the complaint to answer the key question as to how or why Target knew that the subject Instant Pot was defective and unreasonably dangerous. The bald allegations contained in the complaint are nothing more than conclusory and speculative statements that amount only to threadbare recitals of the requisite elements of a claim for punitive damages. Such averments are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.”
The company’s counsel added that the plaintiffs “further failed to allege any facts specifically as to Target that give rise to, or even suggest that Target’s alleged actions were of a sufficient quality and character to support the imposition of punitive damages.”
“The mere act of marketing and/or selling a product does not raise to the level of outrageous conduct. At best, plaintiffs’ averments merely allege negligent conduct, which is not enough to warrant punitive damages. As the averments contained in the complaint do not draw any reasonable inference that Target acted in an outrageous fashion, they are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. The complaint does not show that plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages from Target. The allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint therefore fall short of the requisite plausibility pleading standard. As such, plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim must be dismissed in its entirety,” according to the brief.
For counts of strict products liability, strict liability (failure to warn), negligence, negligent/reckless misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking, jointly and severally, compensatory and punitive damages, in a sum in excess of $75,000, exclusive of pre and post-judgment interest and costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by Benjamin O. Present of Kline & Specter, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Joseph V. Lesinski and Lauren E. Purcell of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00754
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com