JOHNSTOWN – The manufacturer of a device created to assist babies in sleeping has denied allegations from an Altoona couple that the defective machine caused the death of their three-month-old son from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
Tanya McCartney and Mark Montgomery III (individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Kaidon A. Montgomery) of Altoona first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 17 versus Kids2, Inc. (formerly known as “Kids II, Inc.) and Kids2, Inc. (doing business as and also known as “Ingenuity”) of Atlanta, Ga.
On Dec. 30, 2019, McCartney gave birth to her child, Kaidon A. Montgomery. At all times, plaintiffs owned and possessed a product known as the “Ingenuity Automatic Bouncer” inclined sleeper device.
The suit alleged that the product, and the class of products known as infant-inclined sleepers or bouncers, are “defective, dangerous and unsafe for infants as they were designed to place an infant in an unsafe position which interferes with an infant’s ability to breathe.”
The suit said that the product places children, such as plaintiff’s decedent, in a position where the child’s chin falls towards their chest and creates an asphyxiation/suffocation hazard, by the fact that the product’s incline, angle, and design prevents the child from rolling back onto the child’s back in the event that the child rolls onto its stomach in the product.
“The plaintiff’s decedent, Kaidon Montgomery, was the child of plaintiffs, Tanya McCartney and Mark Montgomery III. On April 3, 2020, plaintiffs were residing at their residence located at 104 Howard Avenue, Altoona, Pennsylvania, 16601, along with their son Kaidon,” the suit said.
“The morning of April 3, 2020, plaintiffs woke up to feed their child, Kaidon. During this time, Kaidon was smiling and laughing. After feeding him, plaintiffs placed Kaidon in the product.”
On the morning of April 3, 2020, Kaidon was placed in the product and was then discovered unresponsive by plaintiffs. At this time, Kaidon was limp, and his head was turned to one side in the product. Upon discovering her son Kaidon non-responsive, Tanya McCartney contacted 911 and the 911 operator/dispatcher instructed her to start CPR, which she did.
McCartney attempted CPR on her son Kaidon until EMS responded to the plaintiffs’ apartment. Upon arrival, EMS was unable to find a pulse and Kaidon was declared deceased.
“Defendants recklessly and consciously disregarded the safety, health and lives of babies in their decisions with respect to the design and distribution of the product despite knowing and appreciating the risk of harm, including death to babies and infants, that resulted from their decisions and disregard as pled throughout this complaint. The plaintiff’s decedent died as a result of the negligence, carelessness, wanton and reckless conduct of the defendants and the sale and distribution of the defective and dangerous product which was not safe for its intended and foreseeable use,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result and cause of the defective and unreasonably dangerous product, and the defendants’ negligence, carelessness, recklessness, breach of warranties, and willful and wanton conduct, plaintiff’s decedent asphyxiated and died.”
UPDATE
The defendants answered the complaint on Oct. 21, denying the plaintiffs’ allegations in their entirety and providing 48 separate affirmative defenses on their own behalf.
“The complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by failure to join necessary and indispensable parties. Kids2 performed each and every duty, if any, owed to plaintiffs. Kids2 was not negligent. At the time and place in plaintiffs’ complaint, plaintiffs were negligent by failing to use the degree of care which would have been used under the same or similar circumstances by an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person, and plaintiffs’ negligence was the sole proximate cause of the alleged damages complained of in the complaint,” per the defenses, in part.
“Plaintiffs’ own negligence or fault caused or contributed to plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Plaintiffs’ recovery against Kids2, if any, must be reduced in proportion to plaintiffs’ culpable conduct. Any award of compensatory or punitive damages in this action would violate the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. An award of punitive damages would violate Kids2’s rights to due process, and plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages, thus, are barred by the Constitutions of the United States and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs’ request for actual or compensatory damages violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the unquantifiable damages sought constitute an excessive and arbitrary punishment that furthers no legitimate purpose and, thus, is an arbitrary deprivation of property.”
The defendants added that the plaintiffs cannot establish liability against them “because the product was reasonably fit, suitable, and safe for its intended purpose, and was not ‘unreasonably dangerous.”
For multiple counts of strict liability, breach of warranty of implied merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of express warranty, negligence, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $75,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, delay damages, costs and such other further relief the Court shall deem appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas E. Bosworth of Kline & Specter, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Yasha Khatib Shahidi of Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, in Berwyn.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:21-cv-00166
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com