JOHNSTOWN – The manufacturer of an Instant Pot Programmable Electric Pressure Cooker agreed to settle claims for serious burn injuries a Western Pennsylvania woman allegedly suffered using the device over four years ago.
Susan Stayrook of North Cambria first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 7, 2020 versus Instant Brands, Inc., of Kanata, Ontario, Canada.
In December 2018, Stayrook said she purchased an “Instant Pot Programmable Electric Pressure Cooker,” which specifically includes the Ultra 3-in-1 Mini component referred to in this suit.
“On or about Dec. 28, 2018, plaintiff suffered serious and substantial burn injuries as the direct and proximate result of the Pressure Cooker’s lid being able to be rotated and opened while the Pressure Cooker was still under pressure, during the normal, directed use of the Pressure Cooker, allowing its scalding hot contents to be forcefully ejected from the Pressure Cooker and onto plaintiff,” the suit stated.
“The incident occurred as a result of the failure of the Pressure Cooker’s supposed ‘Built-In Safety Features’, which purport to keep the consumer safe while using the Pressure Cooker. In addition, the incident occurred as the result of defendant’s failure to re-design the Pressure Cooker, despite the existence of economical, safer alternative designs.”
The suit said the defendant’s pressure cookers “possess defects that make them unreasonably dangerous for their intended use by consumers because the lid can be rotated and opened while the unit remains pressurized”, which “put innocent consumers like plaintiff directly in harm’s way.”
“Defendant knew or should have known that its pressure cookers possessed defects that pose a serious safety risk to plaintiff and the public. Nevertheless, defendant continues ignore and/or conceal its knowledge of the pressure cookers’ defects from the general public and continues to generate a substantial profit from the sale of its pressure cookers, demonstrating a callous, reckless, willful, depraved indifference to the health, safety and welfare of plaintiff and consumers like her,” according to the lawsuit.
“As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s intentional concealment of such defects, its failure to warn consumers of such defects, its negligent misrepresentations, its failure to remove a product with such defects from the stream of commerce, and its negligent design of such products, plaintiff used an unreasonably dangerous pressure cooker, which resulted in significant and painful bodily injuries upon plaintiff’s simple removal of the lid of the Pressure Cooker.”
Counsel for Instant Brands, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint on April 19, 2021, where it by and large argued that the plaintiff’s claims stated legal conclusions to which no response is required.
While the defendant admitted it is engaged in the importing, marketing, distribution and sale of the Instant Pot Programmable Electric Pressure Cookers, it denied all other allegations. Aside from the denials of liability, the defendant brought 40 separate affirmative defenses against the lawsuit.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim against Instant Brands upon which relief may be granted. The injuries and damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part, or were contributed to by the negligence and carelessness of plaintiff in failing to take precautions to avoid injury, failing to exercise ordinary and/or due care under the circumstances and/or otherwise being careless and/or negligent,” the defenses state, in part.
“Plaintiff is barred from recovery as the causal negligence of plaintiff was greater than the causal negligence of Instant Brands, if any, which is denied as averred above with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. The damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff were caused, in whole and/or in part, or contributed to by plaintiff and/or the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff must be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims against Instant Brands are barred, in whole and/or in part, by the doctrines of estoppel, consent, fraud, illegality and/or unclean hands.”
Additionally, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims were barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the Fair Share Act and by a failure to mitigate her alleged damages.
UPDATE
On Sept. 7, counsel for Instant Brands filed a proposed order to dismiss the case in the wake of a settlement reached between the parties. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“This matter coming on to be heard upon resolution of the parties, with the Court having being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ordered: The above-captioned case is dismissed in its entirety against all defendants and with prejudice; Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and fees; That Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce resolution and adjudicate liens, and all future court dates are hereby stricken and vacated,” the order stated.
The following day, Sept. 8, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Kim R. Gibson approved the order.
The plaintiff was represented by Paola Pearson of Anapol Weiss, in Philadelphia.
The defendant was represented by James M. Leety and Todd A. Gray of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-00249
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com