PHILADELPHIA – One company has been dismissed from litigation charging that the makers of an infant sleeping device failed to correct an allegedly-inherent flaw in the product, which resulted in the death of a nearly-four-month-old infant.
David Bogdan, Esq. (Administrator of the Estate of C.B. Jr., deceased), Christopher Baylor and Miaya Long, all of Philadelphia, initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 25 versus Dorel Industries, Inc., Dorel China America, Inc. and Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (all doing business as “Monbebe”) of Foxboro, Mass., Dorel Juvenile USA (doing business as “Monbebe”) and Monbebe of Columbus, Ind., Wal-Mart, Inc. (c/o CT Corporation System) of Wilmington, Del,., Wal-Mart Supercenter Stores, Inc. of Philadelphia, John/Jane Does 1-10 and ABC Corporations 1-10.
“C.B. Jr. was born on May 6, 2021. C.B. Jr. (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs’ decedent) died on Aug. 28, 2021. Plaintiffs’ decedent was the first child of Miaya Long and Christopher Baylor, a couple who lives in the West Philadelphia section of Philadelphia County,” the suit said.
“On or about Aug. 28, 2021, Miaya Long and Christopher Baylor were at home when plaintiffs’ decedent had fallen asleep in his father’s arms. At approximately 9 a.m., Mom (Miaya Long) walked into the room, saw plaintiffs’ decedent in his dad’s arms and removed plaintiffs’ decedent from dad and placed him in the product (known as the “Monbebe Flex Deluxe Playard”) and went back to sleep. At around 11 a.m., Mom walked into the room to check on plaintiffs’ decedent who was found face down in the product, and was not breathing. Mom and Dad had rushed plaintiffs’ decedent to Lankenau Hospital.”
The suit added that Baylor and Long had rushed the child to Lankenau Hospital and the plaintiffs’ decedent was unresponsive, pulseless and pronounced dead at 12:03 p.m. on Aug. 28, 2021.
“The plaintiffs’ decedent died because of the negligence, carelessness, wanton and reckless conduct of the defendants and the sale and distribution of their defective and dangerous product which was not safe for its intended and foreseeable use as an infant sleeping product. As a further result of the aforesaid, plaintiffs’ decedent was obliged to receive and undergo medical attention and care, including rehabilitation, hospitalization, surgical procedures, which caused his parents and Estate to incur various and diverse medical expenses. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, wanton, and reckless conduct of the defendants, plaintiffs’ decedent suffered great physical pain and suffering, trauma, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation,” the suit stated.
“As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, wanton, and reckless conduct of the defendant, plaintiffs’ decedent’s daily activities, occupation and usual life’s pleasures were forever extinguished. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, wanton, and reckless conduct of the defendants, plaintiff's’ decedent’s earnings, earning capacity and employment opportunities were terminated. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness of the defendants, Christopher Baylor incurred liability for emergency medical services, funeral, and household expenses.”
Plaintiffs Baylor and Long were registered for baby gifts through a gift registry with the Wal-Mart defendant(s) and were gifted the product in question.
Citing diversity of citizenship and the damages in question, Walmart removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 18.
Walmart answered the action and denied the charges, before providing numerous affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“To the extent discovery reveals evidence of product misuse, plaintiffs’ claims may be barred in whole or in part. To the extent discovery reveals evidence of assumption of risk, plaintiffs’ claims may be barred in whole or in part. To the extent discovery reveals evidence of highly reckless conduct, plaintiffs’ claims may be barred in whole or in part. To the extent discovery reveals evidence that plaintiffs altered the product or its accessory components prior to use of the product, plaintiffs’ claims may be barred in whole or in part. To the extent discovery reveals evidence of contributory and/or comparative negligence, plaintiffs’ claims and/or recoverable damages may be limited by the same. Walmart did not design or manufacture the product in issue,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Walmart is not liable on the grounds that the subject product and its accessory components were state of the art and manufactured and assembled in accordance with all applicable codes, laws, rules and ordinances. Walmart’s liability may be limited to the terms of an express warranty. Walmart breached no express or implied warranties. Walmart made no representations, either impliedly or expressly, upon which plaintiffs relied. Walmart had no actual or constructive notice of any condition or defect alleged by plaintiffs. Walmart did not breach any duty of care to plaintiffs.”
Walmart added that indispensable third-parties to whom liability could and should be assigned had not been added to the case.
Other answers to the litigation filed the same day by Dorel China America, Inc. and Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. put forward similar affirmative defenses.
UPDATE
On Oct. 23, the Dorel defendants filed a stipulation of dismissal to remove Dorel Industries, Inc. as a party in the case.
“Defendants Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (DJG) and Dorel China America, Inc. (DCA) are indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Dorel Industries, Inc. (DI), a Canadian, publicly-traded company. DI does not control, or participate in, the design, manufacturing or sale of DJG’s or DCA’s products. Dorel Juvenile USA is not a recognized legal entity. Monbebe is not a recognized legal entity, but is a trade name used by DCA. Assuming the product at issue is a Monbebe Playard as identified in the plaintiff’s complaint, defendant DI was not involved in the design, manufacture or sale of the play yard,” the stipulation said.
“Neither DJG nor DCA will argue that DI was responsible for the design, manufacture, or sale of the play yard at issue in this case. If, during the course of discovery, it is learned that DI is a proper party in the litigation, DI may be rejoined in this action without any claim that it was not timely sued. In the event that DI is rejoined, the parties agree that DI may assert any and all defenses (other than the defense that it was not timely sued), including lack of personal jurisdiction, that it would have been entitled to assert in its initial pleading had it not been dismissed. If DI has not been rejoined as a party by the close of discovery, then its dismissal shall become one with prejudice, and no party shall seek to include DI as a ‘non-party at fault’ or otherwise include it on any verdict form, or mention it at the time of trial for the purpose of allocating fault to it.”
For counts of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiffs are seeking damages, jointly and/or severally, in excess of $50,000, in compensatory damages, punitive damages, delay damages, costs and such other, further relief the Court shall deem appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin P. O’Brien, Prince P. Holloway and Kristin H. Buddle of Stampone Law, in Cheltenham.
The defendants are represented by Malerie Ma Roddy and Rachel A. Remke of ArentFox Schiff in Chicago, Ill., Frank S. Nofer and Madison C. Bierley of Brehm Nofer &McCarter in Conshohocken, plus Patrick J. McDonnell and Gwyneth Schrager of McDonnell & Associates, in King of Prussia and Cherry Hill, N.J.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-03622
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230802817
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com