PHILADELPHIA – After a Philadelphia plaintiff claimed to have been burned by her new Apple Watch two years ago, both Apple and Best Buy have discounted liability for her injuries.
Doneza Smith of Philadelphia initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on March 20 versus Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, Calif., Best Buy, Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, LP and Best Buy Warehousing Logistics, Inc. of Richfield, Minn. and John Does 1-3.
“On April 30, 2022, the plaintiff purchased from the defendant, Best Buy, an Apple Watch Series 7, Serial Number SM73WKPMYQ5. On or about the 29th day of July, 2022, plaintiff, Doneza Smith, was wearing her Apple Watch Series 7, Serial Number SM73WKPMYQ5, when suddenly the aforesaid Apple Watch burned the plaintiff, a result of which caused plaintiff to sustain severe and serious injuries,” the suit states.
“Solely because of the tortious conduct of the defendants acting as aforesaid, the plaintiff was caused to sustain serious physical injury in and about the person, including but not limited to plaintiffs wrist, hand, fingers, elbow, and arm numbness and tingling, as well as a severe shock to the nerves and nervous system and was or may have been otherwise injured, whereby plaintiff has suffered and may continue to suffer in the future. The plaintiff may have sustained other injuries and pre-existing conditions may have been aggravated.”
The suit continues that the plaintiff avers that some or all of the injuries sustained may be or are of a permanent nature and character.
“As a further result of the aforesaid accident, plaintiff has been unable in the past, and is likely to continue to be unable in the future, to attend to plaintiff’s usual duties, activities, vocations and avocations, all to plaintiff’s great financial loss and detriment. As a further result of the aforesaid accident and resultant injuries, plaintiff has expended and is in the future likely to expend substantial sums of monies for the care, treatment and attempted cure of plaintiff’s injuries, all to plaintiff’s great financial loss and detriment,” the suit says.
“As a further result of the aforesaid accident and resultant injuries, plaintiff has been caused to undergo in the past and is likely to undergo in the future, severe pain, suffering, inconvenience and embarrassment, all to plaintiff’s great financial loss and detriment.”
The case was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 6, and defendants Best Buy and Apple answered it on May 9 and May 13, respectively.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. The alleged injuries of plaintiff were the result of plaintiff’s own negligence which negligence exceeded any alleged negligence by answering defendants, all such alleged negligence by answering defendants having heretofore been expressly denied, and therefore pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, plaintiff’s claims are barred. Plaintiff’s claims are fully barred and mitigated by the theory of contributory negligence and/or voluntary assumption of the risk. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. If the answering defendants are found to have been negligent, strictly liable, and/or liable for breach of warranty with respect to the allegations set forth in plaintiff’s complaint, then it is the position of answering defendants that their negligence was passive, technical and secondary only, and that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff were the result of intervening negligent acts of third persons which acts were superseding causes of said injuries for which reason answering defendants are not liable,” the Best Buy defendants provided in their individual answer, in part.
“Plaintiff’s injuries and damages as alleged were not proximately caused in any manner whatsoever by answering defendants. The alleged injuries to the plaintiff were caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the negligence or want of due care by persons, parties and/or organizations other than answering defendants over whom said defendants had no control, right of control, or responsibility. Because the plaintiff had knowledge of, understood and appreciated the consequences of the alleged act, plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk and therefore, answering defendants are not liable. Answering defendants were not negligent or careless in any respect as alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff’s recovery is barred and/or limited to the extent any materials or products allegedly involved in the incident were altered and/or misused by persons and/or entities over which these defendants have no control or right of control.”
Apple also provided affirmative defenses on their own behalf, in their answer.
“Plaintiff’s action may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. Any recovery by plaintiff may be barred or reduced by plaintiff’s own negligence, comparative fault, assumption of risk and/or carelessness. Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, were caused by the culpable conduct of persons or entities over whom Apple exercised no direction, supervision, or control. If plaintiff were damaged as alleged in the complaint, said damages were caused by the new and independent, unforeseeable, and superseding causes and/or independent, intervening or superseding conduct of persons or entities over whom Apple exercised no direction, supervision or control. Plaintiff’s recovery may be barred or reduced to the extent plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages and/or to the extent she seeks recovery of unnecessary or unreasonable expenses. Any recovery by plaintiff may be barred or reduced by the abnormal use of the Apple Watch, alteration of the Apple Watch, and/or failure to read or heed any warnings or instructions accompanying the Apple Watch by plaintiff or other persons or entities over whom Apple had no control,” Apple said in its own answer, among other defenses.
“Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by her misuse, alteration, or change to the Apple Watch. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any Apple product, if at issue in this lawsuit, was at all relevant times designed, manufactured and sold consistent with available technology, engineering knowledge and the generally recognized state of the art, and complied with all applicable federal, state and local laws, standards and regulations and is entitled to a presumption of not being dangerous or hazardous. At the time Apple placed the Apple Watch in question into the stream of commerce, if at all, it conformed to the state-of-the-art applicable to such product. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part on equitable grounds, including laches, waiver, estoppel and unclean hands. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. Apple is not a ‘seller’ or ‘supplier’ under the principles of strict liability.”
For counts of negligence, strict liability, product liability and breach of implied warranty, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits and in excess of the federal court limits for jurisdictional arbitration.
The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey M. Rosenbaum and Aaron Shotland of Rosenbaum & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Matthew David Garson of Lavin Cedrone Graver Boyd & DiSipio in Philadelphia, and John V. Petrycki Jr. of Donnelly Petrycki & Sansone, in Cherry Hill, N.J.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-01911
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 240302315
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com