Suit Filed in Montco Alleges Furniture Industry Ignored Child Safety
A complaint filed last week in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court accuses American Home Furnishings Alliance Inc. and American Society for Testing and Materials, or ASTM International, of negligence in the May 2017 death of a 2-year-old boy in Lakeland, Florida.
May 21, 2019 at 03:57 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
A lawsuit filed in Montgomery County has charged the U.S. furniture industry with failing to ensure its products are safe for use around children.
A complaint filed May 13 in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court accuses American Home Furnishings Alliance Inc. and American Society for Testing and Materials, or ASTM International, of negligence in the May 2017 death of a 2-year-old boy in Lakeland, Florida.
The plaintiff, Meghan DeLong, found her son Conner unresponsive beneath an IKEA eight-drawer dresser on Mother's Day 2017. Although DeLong was able to get the furniture off her son, he had been cut off from oxygen while he was pinned under the dresser.
According to the complaint, the child “was declared brain-dead and later removed from life support by his mother.” The suit goes on to allege the defendants were aware that ASTM F2057, the furniture industry's tip-over standard “promulgated and implemented by AHFA and ASTM,” was ineffective in preventing children from knocking over household items.
“AHFA and ASTM knew the standards and criteria set forth in ASTM F2057 were inadequate to protect children from the tip-over hazard posed to young children, but nonetheless knowingly misled the entire furniture industry, United States government, and American consumers into relying on, and developing a false sense of security from, a standard that did not protect against the harm it purported to,” the lawsuit said.
Citing a study by nonprofit children's product safety organization Kids In Danger, the complaint contends approximately 22,000 children younger than 8 years old are annually injured by furniture that's toppled over.
The lawsuit asserts the defendant's “failure to exercise reasonable care in the promulgation, implementation, or amendment of furniture stability safety standards, including but not limited to F2057, increased the risks of harm to Conner DeLong.”
ASTM's communications director Nathan Osburn did not return inquiries by press time. Pat Bowling, vice president of communications with the AHFA, said the company had no comment on the litigation.
Read the lawsuit:
DeLong had previously filed suit and settled with IKEA prior to Monday's legal action. Her attorney, Leesfield Scolaro partner Thomas Scolaro, said because the dresser that killed his client's son met the defendant's safety standards, ”the manufacturer was duped as well.”
“It is our position and our client's position that the furniture industry … has failed the consumers, has failed the American public and children by promulgating a standard that gives parents an incredibly false sense of security,” the Miami litigator said.
Scolaro added the current test only checks to see if a unit falls over when all drawers are fully opened or when a single 50-pound weight is placed on individual drawers while they're extended. He asserted the present test weight is “inadequate if you're going to go with this static pull out one drawer at a time nonsense.”
Scolaro said an increase to a 60-pound test weight would encompass a larger range of children, as would a progressive test where multiple drawers are opened from the bottom up as more weight is steadily applied. He noted DeLong's son “only weighed 31 pounds.”
“When kids are hell-bent on climbing up something, they're going to figure out a way to do it,” Scolaro said. “They don't pull out the lower drawer and become Superman. … They have to pull out multiple drawers. There's no test that includes a dynamic force or dynamic weight on the drawers when multiple are pulled out.
He added, ”If a 31-pound child can tip over this dresser, that tells you you're not testing remotely what you should be.”
Scolaro said he and DeLong hope “to bring new and stricter testing standards and requirements through this lawsuit.”
“I have found through my 20 years of experience that the only thing that motivates corporations and companies to change is when they are at risk for being sued and paying damage claims,” he said. “Meghan only wants Conner back, and since that's not going to happen, she has charged me with making sure this doesn't happen again, and this is how I'm fulfilling my promise to her. She wants to make sure there are no more Conner DeLongs.”
Related stories:
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 AllA Word on Hearsay: Using Prior Statements Under Pennsylvania and Federal Rules
7 minute readAfter the Decision in 'Ungarean,' Is the Battle of Insurance Coverage for COVID Losses in Pa. Over?
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
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