PITTSBURGH – The manufacturer of an Instant Pot pressure cooking device which allegedly burned a two-year-old girl replies to litigation over the incident by counter-claiming that the child’s mother was instead responsible for her injuries.
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.”
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.
UPDATE
Instant Brands filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 9, by and large denying its contents, asserting 25 affirmative defenses against the plaintiff, as well as a counterclaim.
“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to set forth a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims against answering defendant are barred or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 7102(a)-(b). Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred or limited by the doctrines of contributory negligence, comparative fault, and assumption of risk,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred or limited by plaintiffs’ unintended and/or unforeseen use of the product, and failure to follow the written warnings and instructions provided with the product. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred or limited under the doctrines of product misuse and/or abuse of the product. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred or limited for failure to mitigate damages.”
Furthermore, Instant Brands argued that Gonzalez herself was negligent in causing the events in question.
“The actions and conduct of Brittany Gonzalez constitute negligence and caused and/or contributed to the alleged injuries to minor plaintiffs N.G. and O.C. In the event that the averments of plaintiffs are proven true at trial, said allegations being specifically denied, then the losses, injuries, and/or damages alleged by plaintiffs N.G. and O.G. were caused in whole or in part by the actions, omissions, breaches, and other liability producing conduct of Brittany Gonzalez,” the counterclaim said.
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 Dennis R. Callahan of Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy in Philadelphia and Joseph V. Lesinski 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