Parents of dead teen sue Monster Beverage Corp.
On Dec. 16, 2011, Anais Fournier had a 24-ounce can of Monster Energy drink. On Dec. 17, she had another one. By that evening, Fournier was in cardiac arrest, and six days later, she was dead.
October 23, 2012 at 06:07 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
On Dec. 16, 2011, Anais Fournier had a 24-ounce can of Monster Energy drink. On Dec. 17, she had another one. By that evening, Fournier was in cardiac arrest, and six days later, she was dead.
Now, Fournier's parents have sued Monster Beverage Corp., the maker of the popular energy drink, for wrongful death. They claim that the beverage—and it's high caffeine content—caused Fournier's death, which was reported on her death certificate as “cardiac arrhythmia due to caffeine toxicity complicating mitral valve regurgitation in the setting of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.”
The suit, filed last week with the Superior Court of California, says that Monster has failed to disclose the exact amount of caffeine in its drinks and claims the company has not tested its drinks to determine the effects their high caffeine content have on the cardiovascular system. The suit also says the company markets its drinks to teens and young consumers but fails to disclose the health dangers of its products to its customers—particularly those who have existing heart conditions.
In their suit, Fournier's parents ask “to recover all damages allowed by law for personal injuries suffered by their daughter prior to her death.” The complaint goes on to read, “Additionally, the plaintiffs seek to recover all damages allowed by law as a result of the wrongful death of their daughter.”
In addition to Fournier, four other people may have died after drinking Monster Energy in the past three years, according to a recent Food & Drug Administration report.
“FDA continues to evaluate the emerging science on a variety of ingredients, including caffeine,” FDA Spokeswoman Shelly Burgess said in an email to Bloomberg Businessweek. In a statement to The New York Times, Burgess said that energy drink manufacturers are responsible for investigating any accusations of death or injuries associated with them.
Read more recent articles and columns about product liability on InsideCounsel:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
- 2Solana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
- 3What We Heard From Litigation Leaders This Year
- 4What's Next For Johnson & Johnson's Talcum Powder Litigation?
- 5The Legal's Top 5 Pennsylvania Verdicts of 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250