PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has levied an order of confidentiality in litigation brought by the mother of a two-year-old girl burned by an allegedly faulty Instant Pot pressure cooking device, to the manufacturer of that same 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.”
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.
UPDATE
Instant Brands motioned for a confidential protective order on Jan. 20.
This order pertained to: “Medical records, trade secrets and confidential, proprietary and non-public documents and information, the public disclosure of which could be detrimental to the interests of plaintiffs, defendants and/or related entities; documents which may contain information that is personal and confidential to third parties, including individuals; and documents and information subject to a claim of privilege or immunity from discovery (including but not limited to attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, and immunities created by federal or state statute or regulation).”
“In this lawsuit, protected material may be disclosed to the parties; to the counsel of record for the parties who are actively engaged in the conduct of the litigation; to the partners, associates, secretaries, paralegal assistants, and employees of such an attorney to the extent reasonably necessary to render professional services in the litigation; to persons with prior knowledge of the documents or the confidential information contained therein, and their agents; and to court officials involved in the litigation (including court reporters, persons operating video recording equipment at depositions, and any special master appointed by the Court),” the motion stated.
“Protected Material may also be disclosed to any neutral such as a mediator or arbitrator upon whom the parties agree to mediate and/or adjudicate this matter as a part of alternative dispute resolution, solely for the limited purpose of the mediation and/or adjudication of this matter.”
The arrangement was consented to by counsel for all parties, leading U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand to grant the motion.
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 and Shanin Specter of Kline & Specter, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Dennis R. Callahan of Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy in Philadelphia, James M. Leety of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith and Joseph V. Lesinski of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, both 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