ALLENTOWN – A federal judge has ruled that the biological father of one girl among two killed in a fatal house fire in Hellertown in April 2022, a fire started by a hoverboard device which malfunctioned while charging, is not eligible to recover damages under the Wrongful Death Act.
Damien W. Kaufman and Jennifer Lee Kaufman (individually and as Administrators of the Estates of Abigail Kaufman, a minor, deceased and Brianna Baer, a minor, deceased) of Hellertown first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 21, 2022 versus Jetson Electric Bikes, LLC of Brooklyn, N.Y. and Target Corporation of Minneapolis, Minn.
The suit claimed that both defendant companies knew or should have known that the Jetson Rogue Hoverboard’s batteries had the ability to short circuit and cause fires while charging, and that the product was not sufficiently tested before it was distributed and sold; in this case, through Target.
Firefighters arriving to the scene pulled both girls out of the home, but they later died at the hospital of burns and smoke inhalation. Northampton County District Attorney Terence Houck’s office said the cause of the fire was electrical in nature and the girls’ deaths were ruled accidental in April 2022.
“On Dec. 10, 2018, plaintiff, Damien Kaufman, purchased the Jetson Rogue Hoverboard at Walmart (authorized dealer of the Jetson Rogue Hoverboard) located at 195 North West End Boulevard, Quakertown, Pennsylvania 18951 as a Christmas gift for plaintiff minor-decedent, Brianna Baer. The Jetson Rogue Hoverboard, and/or its component parts, were designed and/or manufactured by defendants. On April 1, 2022, plaintiff minor-decedent, Abigail Kaufman began charging the Jetson Rogue Hoverboard inside her bedroom,” the suit said.
“While charging, the Jetson Rogue Hoverboard ignited causing the home to be engulfed with flames and smoke. Plaintiff Jennifer Kaufman, was able to escape the home from her first-floor bedroom. Plaintiff Damian Kaufman, was inside the home’s garage at the time of the fire, but was unable to enter the home due to the intensity of the fire. Plaintiff minor-decedents, Abigail Kaufman and Brianna Baer, were trapped on the second floor inside Brianna Baer’s bedroom.”
The suit added plaintiffs Jennifer Kaufman and Damian Kaufman, stood on the front lawn of their home and watched helplessly as the girls awaited fire rescue.
“Plaintiff minor-decedents, Abigail Kaufman and Brianna Baer, were retrieved by the Dewey Fire Department from the home’s third floor and transported to St. Luke’s Hospital. At approximately 6:37 am, plaintiff minor-decedent, Brianna Baer was pronounced dead as a result of smoke inhalation and/or effects of the fire. At approximately 8:25 am, Plaintiff minor-decedent Abigail Kaufman was pronounced dead as a result of smoke inhalation and/or effects of the fire. Plaintiffs’ home at 630 Linden Avenue, Hellertown, Pennsylvania 18055 and the personal belongings therein were completely destroyed,” the suit stated.
“Due to the unreasonably dangerous and defective design of the Jetson Rogue Hoverboard, as described throughout this complaint, plaintiff minor-decedents, Abigail Kaufman and Brianna Baer were caused to burn and suffer smoke inhalation, which resulted in their deaths, witnessed by their parents, plaintiffs, Jennifer Kaufman and Damian Kaufman on April 1, 2022. Defendants’ manual and website fails to acknowledge the risk of severe injury or death to owners through fire caused by its defective design, and they proceeded to market and sell the Jetson Rogue Hoverboard anyway.”
Thomas R. Kline, a member of plaintiff counsel, indicated that he and the plaintiffs seek to hold both Walmart and Jetson Electric Bikes accountable for their alleged roles in the fatal fire.
“We intend to hold the seller and the manufacturer of this dangerous product responsible for the deaths of two innocent young children, and, in doing so, seek to prevent future preventable injury, death and grief from occurring,” Kline stated.
Jetson Electric Bikes and Target answered the complaint on Nov. 10, 2022 and denied the plaintiffs’ allegations in their entirety.
“Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. These defendants did not breach any duty of care to plaintiffs, as such duty is defined by law in these circumstances. No act, action, conduct, or omission on the part of these defendants were a proximate, factual, or direct cause of the injuries, losses and/or damages set forth in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. These defendants specifically deny that there was any defect in the design or manufacture of the Jetson Rogue hoverboard when it left these defendants’ possession. At all times material hereto, the Jetson Rogue hoverboard was free of defects and hazardous conditions; was without a condition existing that required warning to those lawfully and carefully operating it; was in a manner fit and appropriate for the purposes intended; and was in compliance with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and statutes,” the answer’s affirmative defenses.
“The Jetson Rogue hoverboard was out of these defendants’ possession and control for a period of time before the subject incident, and if there was any condition in the subject product at the time of the alleged incident that caused or contributed thereto, such condition developed and existed as a result of misuse, alteration, changes, modification, improper installation or improper repairs made to the subject product after it left these defendants’ control and/or possession. The Jetson Rogue hoverboard met all applicable standards and regulations at the time of sale by these defendants. Any liability of these defendants, if any, is mitigated by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute.”
According to the defendants, the Jetson Rogue hoverboard was designed and manufactured consistent with the state of the art for similar products at the time of its design, manufacture and sale – and the product was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous pursuant to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
“The product was designed in conformity with the applicable state of the art and/or consumer expectations. The utility of the product outweighs the alleged risk and the product was not in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user,” per the defenses.
UPDATE
Last Aug. 18, the plaintiffs filed a motion to determine beneficiary status, in reference to Baer’s biological father, Joseph T. Blose, currently an inmate at SCI-Huntingdon. The plaintiffs strongly opposed any claim Blose would make to obtain a portion of any damages recovered in the instant case – which is approaching a settlement.
“Blose was not at the hospital when Brianna was born and did not sign her birth certificate. Blose did not visit Brianna when she came home from the hospital as Blose could not be found. Instead, his mother and sister visited the child. At no point during Brianna’s life did Blose see the child, contribute financially to her upbringing, or provide emotional support. The extent of Blose’s interaction with Brianna came from a series of phone calls to Brianna when she was approximately three years old. During one of those calls, Blose promised to give Brianna a Rapunzel doll for her birthday or for Christmas. Blose failed to make good on that promise. Roughly seven months after Brianna was born, Blose was arrested for burglary. He served a sentence of two to four years for that burglary,” U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Joseph F. Leeson Jr. stated, among findings of fact contained in a Jan. 5 memorandum opinion.
“Since Brianna’s birth, Blose has spent over 15 years in prison. Blose has also spent significant time in drug rehabilitation for cocaine and heroin addiction over the same period of time. At present, Blose is serving a 10 to 23-year sentence for burglary. Blose cannot describe Brianna’s personality. Blose has never provided any financial or emotional support to Brianna because he was under the assumption that Brianna was not his biological child. Blose never used the court system to attempt to establish parental rights to Brianna.”
Leeson found that under the tenets of the Wrongful Death Act, Blose was not eligible to recover any damages from his daughter’s death.
“In the instant matter, a cursory examination of the record shows that Blose has had no family relation with Brianna Baer and suffered no pecuniary loss from her passing. Early in his testimony, he admitted that he could not describe Brianna’s personality. For nearly all of Brianna’s life, Blose has been in prison or rehabilitation. By his own words, Blose admitted that he offered no financial or emotional support to Brianna. Nor did he use the courts to attempt to establish his parental rights. Finally, the extent of his communication with the child was over 10 years before her death,” Leeson said.
“It appears that Blose has tried to argue that Brianna was kept from him. He explained that he was told he was not her father. The Court does not find this credible. Notwithstanding that, the purpose of a wrongful death action is to compensate those who have suffered a loss. Regardless of Blose’s reason for failing to maintain a relationship, he cannot demonstrate a pecuniary loss because he had no meaningful relationship with the child. Accordingly, the Court holds that Blose is not entitled to recover under the Wrongful Death Act.”
However, Leeson further determined that the Court issued no ruling on whether Blose could recover under the Survival Act.
For counts of strict products liability, strict products liability – failure to warn, negligence, negligent/reckless misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, negligent infliction of emotional distress, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas R. Kline, Aaron L. Dunbar, Charles L. Becker and John P. O’Neil of Kline & Specter in Philadelphia, plus Latisha M. Bernard of Barley Snyder, in Wyomissing.
The defendants are represented by David A. DuBois of Rawle & Henderson, Dennis P. Ziemba of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott in Philadelphia, plus Eugene M. LaFlamme, Jared B. Giroux and Roman G. Klaric of McCoy Leavitt Laskey in Waukesha, Wis., Falmouth, Maine and Chicago, Ill.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:22-cv-03765
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com