West Pennsylvania Couple Sues Target over Toy Box Injury

March 11, 2010

  • March 11, 2010 at 11:56 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    so if you have 2 yr old opening these boxes, then where is the supervision? as a parent you have to assume some of the responsibility of knowing your kids ability. target probably took them off the shelves just for that reason, someone felt it was someone else’s responsibility. so, if a toddler sitting in a booster seat, manages to unbuckle herself and you get into an accident – are you going to blame the manufacturer because the kid got himself loose? a kid who decides to put a toy in his mouth and he starts to have breathing problems, we are going to sue because the kid could do just that? a kid who opens the toy box and it falls, we going to sue who sold the box why not the manufacturer? afterall, the store sold the item, they did not make it. the next thing you are going to tell me, they will next sue the folks that supplied the wicker (wood) for the box.

    i know it is a tragedy, but in the end, we are talking about parents being responsible for the child and purchasing an appropriate item.

  • March 11, 2010 at 12:56 pm
    Liability Jim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A lot of these parents sue because they are embarrassed about what happened. They want someone else to be responsible when such a tragedy occurs. I am a parent of a baby girl who is getting to an age where she is exploring the world and her mother and I worry about her having an accident but it is important for her to learn about the world and there is no other way to to that. We keep a close watch on her and that is really all you can do. I feel as though it is not appropriate to sue manufacturers over anything except when they knowingly put an unsafe product out there.

  • March 11, 2010 at 12:58 pm
    Ben Dover says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wudchuck, where have you been? no one is responsible for their actions anymore.

  • March 11, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    Mongoose says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wudchuck,
    This is the McDonald’s Defense. It is never the fault of the family but always someone else’s fault.

    It is sad but how long was this child alone to cause total brain damage? How heavy is the top? If the top is heavy why would you allow a child to use it as a toybox?

  • March 11, 2010 at 1:02 am
    CA CISR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Even if there was a warning on the box itself, wouldnt they still sue anyway because they obviously werent watching their child? Plus the kid is 2, she wouldnt have been able to read the warning, so who would it have helped? The parents were negligent and want someone else to pay up.

  • March 11, 2010 at 1:08 am
    Broker Friend says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When they wheel this child into the court room on a ventilator, explain the parents culpability to the jury. what a great country

  • March 11, 2010 at 1:16 am
    Temblor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sorry, but in the McDonalds case, they had numerous other cases where patrons were burned. The coffee was just to hot to be handing to people in a vehicle, they new about it and did not adjust the temperature – that was the basis of the suit and there losing.

    Tragically, in this case we have a pair of parents who are to stupid to have been allowed to breed.

  • March 11, 2010 at 1:29 am
    Raised three kids says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Don’t they read or watch TV? I would not have bought such an item if I had small children. Common sense and parental responsibility. It is a tragedy, but why
    is someone else always responsible?

  • March 11, 2010 at 1:54 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    everyone is right! because they truly as parents did not take their own responsibility. what they found is a load of medical bills and they can’t afford it! so they figure along w/the stupid lawyer (who’ll get more than they), sue for lots of money just because i don’t any to spend on my daughter’s healthcare.

  • March 11, 2010 at 1:56 am
    Tropical agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If the lid was that heavy, who opened it? If the parents opened the lid and walked away they put their child in danger. They need to take the blame.

  • March 11, 2010 at 2:16 am
    Inca Warrior says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We have one of these wicker boxes in our daughter’s room. If we thought it was unsafe we wouldn’t have purchased it in the first place. This whole suit is a fine example of parents avoiding responsibility on a bunch of different levels. I hope they lose the suit and I hope their kid recovers. It is a shame the innocent little babies have to suffer the consequences of their parent’s bad choices.

  • March 11, 2010 at 3:15 am
    Copywench says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Where were the parents? surely the child would have cried or somehow let them know she was in distress. I would never leave a 2-year-old unattended.

  • March 11, 2010 at 4:03 am
    lynn says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    sorry, but if this happened to YOUR child you would be sue-happy too. if target advertised this item as some type of toy storage device don’t you think your child is going to access this box for toys? duh! everyone can sit here and say, “watch your child more closely!”, “its the parents negligence!”, blah, blah. you can’t tell me that your child hasn’t slipped out of your site for 60 seconds…you just happened to luck out, while this family did not. i hope they win and everyone that disagrees can go to hell.

  • March 11, 2010 at 4:11 am
    temblor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Looks like we’re all going to hell.

    Only a moron would buy something like that for a two year old.

    A moron, you hear! It’s not an issue of watching the kid every secong, it’s using common sense to decide if something is appropriate.

    How do you know how Target advertised it, or even if they did. Its probably something like the moron mother thinking “Why, that will go nicely with the decor in the kid’s room!”

    And the moron father not saying “Hmmm. That’s lids a bit heavy to use in a 2 year old’s room. We better not.”

    Morons! You hear. They shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce in the first place.

  • March 11, 2010 at 4:16 am
    lynn says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    1. i’m pretty sure the box wasn’t in the child’s room, it was living room decor

    2. it’s a fact that target advertised this box as, “great for toy storage!” so target would have to assume that a child would access the box

    sorry charlie!

  • March 11, 2010 at 4:25 am
    temblor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Doesn’t matter where it was or how they advertised it. Even a moron should be able to make the “intelligent” observation that’s it’s inappropriate for a home with a 2 year old.

    That’s the parent’s responsibility to make that judgement, not Target’s.

  • March 12, 2010 at 8:41 am
    Mr. Obvious says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Don’t they know that 2 year olds can’t read yet.

  • March 12, 2010 at 10:49 am
    Ben Dover says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When I read the article the first time, I thought the accident occurred in the Target store. If this happened at the home of the child, then this is a ridiculous lawsuit.

  • March 12, 2010 at 11:18 am
    Laura says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Here is an article with more info
    http://wis-injury.com/blog/
    As it states, the CPSC requires supports on “toy boxes” so I’m guessing this was a wicker chest, not a “toy box” specifically sold for that purpose. But Target may be stuck on this one, if it’s true, as a previous comment said, that their ad said it was “great for toys”
    Note this line from the article: The family doesn’t know how long Camryn was trapped by the toy box lid. WHAT ? How long did they leave their 18 mo alone ????
    Tragic, but this is the parent’s fault – they decided to use the wicker chest for toys without considering if it was safe, and then left the child unsupervised.

  • March 12, 2010 at 1:45 am
    TEXAS AGENT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    LYNN,

    WHY SUCH LANGUAGE??????? SENDING SOMEONE TO HELL IS NO JOKING MATTER… BAD DAY???? MAYBE YOU SHOULD GO HOME!!!!! I AM GLAD YOU DO NOT WORK FOR ME!

  • March 12, 2010 at 1:50 am
    Temblor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Careful, she may be the personal injury attorney who is handling the suit…

  • March 12, 2010 at 6:47 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ok, so if the product has a suggestion that it can be used for ages 2 – 4, your child is unable to use it, do you sue?! the society today likes to find others at-fault and they should pay everything and anything. each kid is unique and individuals are not made the same. that is why products have a suggested age on them. but that does not mean that your kid in that age group is appropriate, but likewise, your kid maybe better than a 4 yr old and still be only 2. this would be like me and my kids when it comes to driving. the state may say we can get them a permit at age 15 and regular license at 16 (most kids want mom and dad to get them a license), yet we as parents are reluctant to place them on insurance because of the inexperience. as parents, we sometimes set rules and guidelines down because of the responsibility that goes with driving the car. kids at the age of 2 don’t exactly have the best intelligence yet. they rely on their parents for guidance and a safety net. it’s not the toy store responsibility (in this case target), nor the manufacturer. i am sorry, but parents – we grieve for you pain, but you need to take responsibility.

  • March 13, 2010 at 4:11 am
    local says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It was sold as a WICKER TRUNK not a WICKER TOY BOX.They should have been watching her closer. They don’t even remember the time frame as to how long she was trapped. I feel very sorry for them,but why did the little girl not have a nice,little,lightweight,and childlike toybox. Why was it something fancy looking for the house.I really do feel bad for them but they should get child neglect charges on them and target should countersue for slander on there part.

  • March 15, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    Chic-chick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    March is Brain Injury Awareness month … if this unfortunate accident happenend to me, I would do everything in my power to get my story out there. Heartbreaking!

  • March 15, 2010 at 9:42 am
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is a symtom of a bigger problem. This case just goes to show that society is falling down to the level of no responsiblity. Here are two parents who are upset that their child is a vegatable. I know they’re upset and are looking for someone to blame. Looking inward is too hard, so they blame Target. Why accept personal responsibilty when you can blame someone else? They’ll bring their poor child into court, the jury will see them and they’ll also want to blame someone. Unfortunately, it won’t be the parents, the ones who had the responsibility to ensure that their child was in a safe environment and was properly supervised.
    Our society has moved away from personal responsibility to a “it’s someone else’s fault” mentality. Sad, really.

  • March 15, 2010 at 9:52 am
    A Boy Named Sue Everyone says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bicycles and skateboards are acceptable for use by children, and how many injuries, some fatal, are the result of the use of these items? If the manufacturers and retailers that sell these items were sued every time something happened, there would no longer be any bicycles or skateboards.

    Lynn seems like someone who would sue McDonald’s because a child got fat from eating the food.

    Bottom line – we all pay for these lawsuits; it doesn’t come out of the CEO’s pocket, it comes out of ours.

  • March 15, 2010 at 10:43 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    comes back to that basic issue and who is responsible? afterall, should we call social services because they allowed this to happen? or shall we blame the big company just because? i have been saying this all along, that we want to sue happy anyone who has bigger pockets than our ownselves. in this case, they are going to need big pockets because of the severity of the incident that they should have been responsible for. parents are responsible for their kids at a minor age. i am sorry that this tragic event happened, but not satisfied that blame belongs to anyone but the parent. what makes matters worse, is we are allowing lawyers to take this to court and they win either way. this is a frivilous lawsuit.

  • March 15, 2010 at 12:17 pm
    Temblor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is indeed a tragic situation. It’s horrible to think a 2 year old is essentially brain dead because her parents were to stupid to make their home safe for her.

  • March 22, 2010 at 9:44 am
    Chic-chick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    From an article about Leagalmatchmakers.com:
    “For concerned parents, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission maintains a list of toy hazard recalls, and recalls.gov is also a valuable resource for alerting American consumers about potentially unsafe or defective products. Though government agencies work hard at regulating the huge number of consumer products sold in the United States, it is also the role of lawsuits like this one to encourage companies to test thoroughly and to include all appropriate warnings— and perhaps prevent tragedies like this in the future.”

  • March 23, 2010 at 7:04 am
    credit says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m not so sure angry people like temblor should be allowed to have children either.

  • March 23, 2010 at 10:38 am
    temblor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Glad to see “Credit” doesn’t seem to think the parents have the basic responsibility of protecting their own child.

  • March 24, 2010 at 3:02 am
    credit says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I do think parents have the greatest responsibilty to their children to provide safey and these parents weren’t doing that; however, when people like temblor can’t make a point without name calling or getting nasty, they sound ignorant….therefore their point becomes invalid and marked as trash words. I’m just saying make a point without sounding like another piece of trash.

  • May 20, 2010 at 7:28 am
    Kara Koski says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why wouldn’t you just take her off of the feeding tube? Is it really fair to keep her alive when she looks dead? No its just plain cruel!

  • May 21, 2010 at 11:28 am
    Shocked says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Talk about “Cruel”!!! Letting that poor child starve to death would be better????? You are ludicrous! We should all hope that you are never responsible for another life, Kara Koski.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*