A Lakewood family has just secured a financial settlement after their son was rushed to the emergency room after choking on a roller ball candy, FAA News has learned.
According to the complaint filed today in New Jersey Superior Court in Ocean County by Roseland Attorney Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.:
Brooklyn-based Twenty Four Six Foods, LLC (“TFSF”) designed, manufactured, marketed and sold “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” to Kosher market stores nationwide from January 2018 through July 2023.
On July 6, 2023, while eating the candy, the roller ball portion of device dislodged and got caught in the boy’s windpipe, causing him to suffer a choking incident, resulting in pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, and costs for medical care and treatment, and other economic and non-economic damages. The injuries and losses are permanent and continuing in nature.
Subsequently, in March 2024, TFSF initiated a nationwide recall of the “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” because the “candy’s rolling ball can dislodge from the product into a child’s mouth, posing a choking hazard and risk of death.”
Pursuant to the New Jersey Product Liability Act, (“NJPLA”), the defective manufacturing was characterized by the production of unreasonably dangerous devices, including nonconforming materials and inappropriate, unsafe components, using inconsistent and unsafe techniques and methods which were not reasonably standardized or validated, and which deviated from the intended design and manufacturing processes and specifications, resulting in “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” of variable quality that were not reasonably contemplated per the specifications, and failed to always function as designed, none of which was intended or provided for by the design and manufacturing specifications, formulae, processes, and performance standards of the company.
The manufacturer developed, designed, tested, manufactured, inspected, labeled, distributed, marketed, promoted, sold, and otherwise released the “Funtime Roller Ball Candy”into the stream of commerce and in the course of same, directly advertised or marketed the “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” to consumers and end users, including Plaintiff. The manufacturer therefore had a duty to adequately warn of the risk that the “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” roller ball could dislodge while being eaten, and that as a result, could be a choking hazard to users, particularly young children.
The manufacturer knew that the manufacturing process as implemented was defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous, resulting in the manufacture of unreasonably dangerous, defectively manufactured “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” with an increased and unreasonable risk of causing severe injuries, including but not limited to choking and death, none of which was intended by the design and manufacturing specifications.
The design of the “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” was defective and unreasonably dangerous, resulting roller balls that dislodge during use, thereby posing a choking hazard, which can result in severe injuries, including death. The manufacturer liable to Plaintiff for injuries caused by its willful failure, as described above, to provide adequate warnings or other relevant information and data regarding the risks associated with the "Funtime Roller Ball Candy."
The boy could not have reasonably discovered the defects and risks associated with the “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” prior to using it and its resultant failure. He relied upon the skill, superior knowledge, and judgment of the manufacturer to know about and disclose serious health risks associated with using the “Funtime Roller Ball Candy."
The manufacturer knew that the warnings disseminated with the “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” were inadequate, failed to communicate adequate information on the risk that the roller ball could dislodge during use, and that such propensity to fail made it a choking hazard to users, particularly young children, and failed to communicate warnings and instructions that were appropriate and adequate to render the “Funtime Roller Ball Candy” safe for its ordinary, intended, and reasonably foreseeable use.
The complaint demands judgment against the manufacturer for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
The family has just secured a financial settlement from the manufacturer. The court has scheduled a friendly hearing next week to formalize the terms of the settlement.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment