Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`TANEQUA MONIQUE BRAYBOY and
`MICKEY FRED, as CO-ADMINISTRATORS
`OF THE ESTATE OF C.D.F., TANEQUA
`MONIQUE BRAYBOY, individually, and
`MICKEY FRED, individually
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`FISHER-PRICE, INC., MATTEL, INC., and
`WAL-MART, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00384-RNC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APRIL 14, 2021
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`FIRST COUNT:
`Tanequa Monique Brayboy and Mickey Fred, Co-Administrators
`of the Estate of Cali Dream Fred v. Fisher-Price, Inc.- (Product Liability)
`
`
`1.
`
`On March 31, 2019, CALI DREAM FRED lost her life. On June 6, 2019
`
`TANEQUA MONIQUE BRAYBOY and MICKEY FRED were appointed CO-
`
`ADMINISTRATORS of the Estate of CALI DREAM FRED in the District of Bridgeport,
`
`Probate Court No. PD48, and are duly authorized to act in that capacity.
`
`2.
`
`This action is brought as a “product liability claim” within the meaning of that term
`
`as described in section 52-572m(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes and pursuant to and in
`
`accordance with the terms and provisions of the Connecticut “Product Liability Law” sections 52-
`
`572m through 52-572r of the Connecticut General Statutes.
`
`3.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the defendant, FISHER-PRICE, INC., was a
`
`corporation organized to do business in the State of New York with a principal place of business
`
`located at 636 Girard Avenue, East Aurora, NY 14052.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`4.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, the defendant was engaged in the business of designing,
`
`manufacturing, distributing and/or selling toys, family products, and child products including, but
`
`not limited to, the “Auto Rock ‘n Play Sleeper”, hereinafter referred to as the “Rock ‘n Play”.
`
`5.
`
`The manufacture, distribution and/or sale of the Rock ‘n Play by the defendant was
`
`done with the reasonable expectation that said product was to be used or consumed in this State
`
`and/or was so used within the meaning of Connecticut General Statutes section 52-572m, et seq.
`
`6.
`
`The subject Rock ‘n Play was purchased in a retail setting at the Wal-Mart Store #
`
`2163 located at 465 Bridgeport Avenue in Shelton, Connecticut.
`
`7.
`
`The subject Rock ‘n Play was purchased as a product intended to be used for its
`
`marketed and designed purpose: child rest, relaxation, placement, sleep, and/or sitting.
`
`8.
`
`The defendant, FISHER-PRICE, INC., first introduced the Rock ‘n Play line of
`
`products in or around 2009.
`
`9.
`
`Since the defendant introduced the Rock ‘n Play into the marketplace, it had
`
`advertised and represented to its customers that the Rock ‘n Play products were a safe and
`
`convenient baby product. It was represented and marketed that: “The inclined seat helps your baby
`
`sleep all night”, “Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long”, “This sleeper rocks,
`
`hands free!”, “This sleeper helps give your little one the customized soothing motions he or she
`
`loves, so you both can get some much needed shut-eye”, “Whether they need just a quick snooze
`
`or are ready to settle in for the night the Rock ‘n Play sleeper’s comfortable, restful environment
`
`and dual autorocking settings help teeny-tiny ones wind down and relax with a consistent routine”,
`
`“Inclined sleeper designed for all-night sleep”, “Baby can sleep at a comfy incline all night long!”
`
`10.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was marketed and represented as a product safe and suitable for
`
`use with infant aged children.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`11.
`
`On March 31, 2019, the plaintiff was placed in the subject Rock ‘n Play sleeper for
`
`rest while in a state of good health and liveliness.
`
`12.
`
` On March 31, 2019, the plaintiff was later found unresponsive while still lying in
`
`the subject Rock ‘n Play. The plaintiff was ultimately pronounced dead on March 31, 2019 at 5:52
`
`a.m. She was two months, five days old at the time of her death.
`
`13.
`
`Unknown to the plaintiff and her family, dozens of infants had previously died as a
`
`result of the dangerous and defective condition of the Rock ‘n Play.
`
`14.
`
`The defendant had knowledge of the dangerous and defective nature of the Rock ‘n
`
`Play prior to the plaintiff’s death.
`
`15.
`
`The defendant had been put on notice of other infant deaths prior to that of the
`
`plaintiff.
`
`16.
`
`The defendant had been urged to stop selling and/or recall the Rock ‘n Play prior
`
`to the plaintiff’s death, yet failed to do so.
`
`17.
`
`The line of Rock ‘n Play products was not recalled until after more than thirty
`
`infants died, such as the plaintiff, on April 12, 2019, less than two weeks after the plaintiff’s death.
`
`18.
`
`The design, construction, and implementation of the Rock ‘n Play was dangerous
`
`and defective in one or more of the following ways:
`
`a.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play incorporated a dangerous and/or defective design which was not
`
`flat and forced an infant to sleep in an “L” shape with the knees flexed up toward
`
`the abdomen;
`
`b.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play held infants in an inclined position which allowed their head to
`
`roll downward and to the side- closing off the airway;
`
`c.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was soft and plush rather than firm;
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`d.
`
`The padding utilized and/or incorporated in the Rock ‘n Play created a suffocation
`
`risk when infants turn their head;
`
`e.
`
`It allowed and/or caused infants to roll from their back to their stomach or side
`
`while unrestrained; and,
`
`f.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was marketed as a sleeper, when in fact it was unsuitable and
`
`unsafe for overnight or prolonged sleep.
`
`19.
`
`As a result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product(s), specifically the
`
`Rock ‘n Play sleeper, the deceased plaintiff, CALI DREAM FRED, suffered the following
`
`injuries and losses:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Positional asphyxiation;
`
`Suffocation and hypoxemia;
`
`Anoxic injury;
`
`Death; and,
`
`Pre-death pain and suffering both mental and physical.
`
`20.
`
`As a further result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product(s),
`
`specifically the Rock ‘n Play, the plaintiff was forced to spend large sums of money for hospital
`
`and emergent medical care, and funeral expenses.
`
`21.
`
`As a further result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product, the plaintiff
`
`has suffered the loss of life itself, and is thus unable to participate in and enjoy any activities of
`
`life.
`
`22.
`
`As a further result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product, the plaintiff
`
`has suffered a loss of future earning capacity due to her death.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`23.
`
`At the time the defendant manufactured, distributed and/or sold the product(s)
`
`which is the subject of this lawsuit, it was engaged in the business of selling infant, child, and
`
`family products, such as the Rock ‘n Play sleeper and was a “product seller” within the meaning
`
`of section 52-572m of the Connecticut General Statutes.
`
`24.
`
`These defects caused the injuries, death, and losses for which the plaintiff seeks
`
`compensation.
`
`25.
`
`These defects existed at the time the defendant sold the product.
`
`26.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the defendant’s product(s) was/were without
`
`substantial change from the condition in which it was manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the
`
`defendant.
`
`27.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the subject Rock ‘n Play was used as a sleeper in a
`
`foreseeable manner and was done so without modification, alteration, or disruption from its
`
`original factory design and production.
`
`28.
`
`The plaintiff’s injuries and losses described above were also caused by the
`
`negligence of the defendant in one or more of the following ways:
`
`a.
`
`It failed to properly research the design of the Rock ‘n Play prior to its development
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`and sale;
`
`It failed to properly inspect the Rock ‘n Play;
`
`It failed to properly test the Rock ‘n Play;
`
`The Rock ‘n Play incorporated a dangerous, unsafe, and/or defective design;
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was manufactured in a dangerous, unsafe, and/or defective way;
`
`The Rock ‘n Play incorporated several components and/or characteristics which led
`
`to infant death, such as that of the plaintiff;
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`g.
`
`It failed to adequately warn the intended users of the Rock ‘n Play, of its dangerous
`
`condition(s);
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`It failed to provide adequate instructions for the Rock ‘n Play’s safe use;
`
`It failed to provide adequate assembly and/or use instructions and/or failed to
`
`adequately warn intended users of the risk of the Rock ‘n Play causing infant
`
`injury/death if it was not assembled/used properly;
`
`j.
`
`It failed to identify and/or remove dangerous and/or defective Rock ‘n Play from
`
`its product line when it knew or should have known that said Rock ‘n Play would
`
`likely be purchased by customers and pose a dangerous condition that can lead to
`
`infant injury/death;
`
`k.
`
`It failed to conduct investigations, testing, or redesign the Rock ‘n Play after infant
`
`injury/death was first reported to it;
`
`l.
`
`It failed to recall the Rock ‘n Play in a timely manner;
`
`m.
`
`It failed to sell, provide, and/or package the Rock ‘n Play with informative
`
`
`
`packaging and/or materials;
`
`n.
`
`It failed to counsel, instruct, inform, and/or teach its customers on proper assembly,
`
`installation, application, and/or usage techniques for the Rock ‘n Play; and,
`
`o.
`
`It failed to verify the safety of the Rock ‘n Play it sold both prior to and during its
`
`sale of the item.
`
`29.
`
`In accordance with Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 324 Conn. 402 (2016), the
`
`plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s product is claimed to be unreasonably dangerous under the
`
`“risk utility test” because:
`
`a.
`
`A reasonable alternative design could have reduced or avoided the danger; and
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`b.
`
`The design of the product marketed is manifestly unreasonable in that the risk of
`
`harm from the product so clearly exceeds its utility that a reasonable, informed
`
`consumer would not purchase the product.
`
`30.
`
`The defendant also impliedly warranted that the product was of merchantable
`
`quality.
`
`31.
`
`The defendant breached this implied warranty of merchantability.
`
`32.
`
`As a result of the defendant’s breach of this implied warranty of merchantability,
`
`the plaintiff suffered the injuries, death, and losses more fully described above.
`
`33.
`
`The defendant also expressly warranted that the product(s) was/were fit for its
`
`ordinary purpose and safe for its intended uses.
`
`34.
`
`The plaintiff relied upon the express warranties made by the defendant.
`
`35.
`
`The defendant breached these express warranties.
`
`36.
`
`As a result of the defendant’s breach of these express warranties, the plaintiff
`
`suffered the injuries and losses more fully described above.
`
`
`SECOND COUNT:
`Tanequa Monique Brayboy and Mickey Fred, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Cali
`Dream Fred v. Fisher-Price, Inc.- (Recklessness Pursuant to C.G.S. 52-240b)
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Paragraphs 1-36 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made
`
`corresponding paragraphs of this, the Second Count, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`The defendant, FISHER-PRICE, INC., acted with reckless disregard for the safety
`
`of customers and/or product users, such as the plaintiff, to whom its Rock ‘n Play was promoted and
`
`sold for use, and as a direct and proximate consequence of FISHER-PRICE, INC.’s reckless
`
`disregard for the safety of its customers and/or product users, the plaintiff is entitled to punitive
`
`damages pursuant to C.G.S. Sec. 52-240b.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`THIRD COUNT:
`Tanequa Monique Brayboy v. Fisher-Price, Inc.- (Loss of Consortium)
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 36 of the First Count are hereby incorporated and made
`
`paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Third Count as if fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`At all relevant times, the plaintiff, TANEQUA BRAYBOY, was the lawful mother
`
`of the plaintiff, CALI DREAM FRED.
`
`41.
`
`As a result of the conduct of the defendant, FISHER-PRICE, INC., the plaintiff,
`
`TANEQUA BRAYBOY, has suffered a loss of affection, companionship, society, and consortium
`
`of CALI DREAM FRED.
`
`FOURTH COUNT:
`Mickey Fred v. Fisher-Price, Inc.- (Loss of Consortium)
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 36 of the First Count are hereby incorporated and made
`
`paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Fourth Count as if fully set forth herein.
`
`43.
`
`At all relevant times, the plaintiff, MICKEY FRED, was the lawful father of the
`
`plaintiff, CALI DREAM FRED.
`
`44.
`
`As a result of the conduct of the defendant, FISHER-PRICE, INC., the plaintiff,
`
`MICKEY FRED, has suffered a loss of affection, companionship, society, and consortium of
`
`CALI DREAM FRED.
`
`FIFTH COUNT:
`Tanequa Monique Brayboy and Mickey Fred, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Cali
`Dream Fred v. Mattel, Inc.- (Product Liability)
`
`
`45.
`
`On March 31, 2019, CALI DREAM FRED lost her life. On June 6, 2019
`
`TANEQUA MONIQUE BRAYBOY and MICKEY FRED were appointed CO-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`ADMINISTRATORS of the Estate of CALI DREAM FRED in the District of Bridgeport,
`
`Probate Court No. PD48, and are duly authorized to act in that capacity.
`
`46.
`
`This action is brought as a “product liability claim” within the meaning of that term
`
`as described in section 52-572m(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes and pursuant to and in
`
`accordance with the terms and provisions of the Connecticut “Product Liability Law” sections 52-
`
`572m through 52-572r of the Connecticut General Statutes.
`
`47.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the defendant, MATTEL, INC., was a corporation
`
`organized to do business in the State of Delaware with a principal place of business located at 333
`
`Continental Boulevard, El Segundo, California 90245.
`
`48.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, the defendant was engaged in the business of designing,
`
`manufacturing, distributing and/or selling toys, family products, and child products including, but
`
`not limited to, the “Auto Rock ‘n Play Sleeper”, hereinafter referred to as the “Rock ‘n Play”.
`
`49.
`
`The manufacture, distribution and/or sale of the Rock ‘n Play by the defendant was
`
`done with the reasonable expectation that said product was to be used or consumed in this State
`
`and/or was so used within the meaning of Connecticut General Statutes section 52-572m, et seq.
`
`50.
`
`The subject Rock ‘n Play was purchased in a retail setting at the Wal-Mart Store #
`
`2163 located at 465 Bridgeport Avenue in Shelton, Connecticut.
`
`51.
`
`The subject Rock ‘n Play was purchased as a product intended to be used for its
`
`marketed and designed purpose: child rest, relaxation, placement, sleep, and/or sitting.
`
`52.
`
`The defendant, MATTEL, INC., first introduced the Rock ‘n Play line of products
`
`in or around 2009.
`
`53.
`
`Since the defendant introduced the Rock ‘n Play into the marketplace, it had
`
`advertised and represented to its customers that the Rock ‘n Play products were a safe and
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`convenient baby product. It was represented and marketed that: “The inclined seat helps your baby
`
`sleep all night”, “Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long”, “This sleeper rocks,
`
`hands free!”, “This sleeper helps give your little one the customized soothing motions he or she
`
`loves, so you both can get some much needed shut-eye”, “Whether they need just a quick snooze
`
`or are ready to settle in for the night the Rock ‘n Play sleeper’s comfortable, restful environment
`
`and dual autorocking settings help teeny-tiny ones wind down and relax with a consistent routine”,
`
`“Inclined sleeper designed for all-night sleep”, “Baby can sleep at a comfy incline all night long!”
`
`54.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was marketed and represented as a product safe and suitable for
`
`use with infant aged children.
`
`55.
`
`On March 31, 2019, the plaintiff was placed in the subject Rock ‘n Play sleeper for
`
`rest while in a state of good health and liveliness.
`
`56.
`
` On March 31, 2019, the plaintiff was later found unresponsive while still lying in
`
`the subject Rock ‘n Play. The plaintiff was ultimately pronounced dead on March 31, 2019 at 5:52
`
`a.m. She was two months, five days old at the time of her death.
`
`57.
`
`Unknown to the plaintiff and her family, dozens of infants had previously died as a
`
`result of the dangerous and defective condition of the Rock ‘n Play.
`
`58.
`
`The defendant had knowledge of the dangerous and defective nature of the Rock ‘n
`
`Play prior to the plaintiff’s death.
`
`59.
`
`The defendant had been put on notice of other infant deaths prior to that of the
`
`plaintiff.
`
`60.
`
`The defendant had been urged to stop selling and/or recall the Rock ‘n Play prior
`
`to the plaintiff’s death, yet failed to do so.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`61.
`
`The line of Rock ‘n Play products was not recalled until after more than thirty
`
`infants died, such as the plaintiff, on April 12, 2019, less than two weeks after the plaintiff’s death.
`
`62.
`
`The design, construction, and implementation of the Rock ‘n Play was dangerous
`
`and defective in one or more of the following ways:
`
`a.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play incorporated a dangerous and/or defective design which was not
`
`flat and forced an infant to sleep in an “L” shape with the knees flexed up toward
`
`the abdomen;
`
`b.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play held infants in an inclined position which allowed their head to
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`roll downward and to the side- closing off the airway;
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was soft and plush rather than firm;
`
`The padding utilized and/or incorporated in the Rock ‘n Play created a suffocation
`
`risk when infants turn their head;
`
`e.
`
`It allowed and/or caused infants to roll from their back to their stomach or side
`
`while unrestrained; and,
`
`f.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was marketed as a sleeper, when in fact it was unsuitable and
`
`unsafe for overnight or prolonged sleep.
`
`63.
`
`As a result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product(s), specifically the
`
`Rock ‘n Play sleeper, the deceased plaintiff, CALI DREAM FRED, suffered the following
`
`injuries and losses:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Positional asphyxiation;
`
`Suffocation and hypoxemia;
`
`Anoxic injury;
`
`Death; and,
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`e.
`
`Pre-death pain and suffering both mental and physical.
`
`64.
`
`As a further result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product(s),
`
`specifically the Rock ‘n Play, the plaintiff was forced to spend large sums of money for hospital
`
`and emergent medical care, and funeral expenses.
`
`65.
`
`As a further result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product, the plaintiff
`
`has suffered the loss of life itself, and is thus unable to participate in and enjoy any activities of
`
`life.
`
`66.
`
`As a further result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product, the plaintiff
`
`has suffered a loss of future earning capacity due to her death.
`
`67.
`
`At the time the defendant manufactured, distributed and/or sold the product(s)
`
`which is the subject of this lawsuit, it was engaged in the business of selling infant, child, and
`
`family products, such as the Rock ‘n Play sleeper and was a “product seller” within the meaning
`
`of section 52-572m of the Connecticut General Statutes.
`
`68.
`
`These defects caused the injuries, death, and losses for which the plaintiff seeks
`
`compensation.
`
`69.
`
`These defects existed at the time the defendant sold the product.
`
`70.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the defendant’s product(s) was/were without
`
`substantial change from the condition in which it was manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the
`
`defendant.
`
`71.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the subject Rock ‘n Play was used as a sleeper in a
`
`foreseeable manner and was done so without modification, alteration, or disruption from its
`
`original factory design and production.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 13 of 26
`
`72.
`
`The plaintiff’s injuries and losses described above were also caused by the
`
`negligence of the defendant in one or more of the following ways:
`
`a.
`
`It failed to properly research the design of the Rock ‘n Play prior to its development
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`and sale;
`
`It failed to properly inspect the Rock ‘n Play;
`
`It failed to properly test the Rock ‘n Play;
`
`The Rock ‘n Play incorporated a dangerous, unsafe, and/or defective design;
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was manufactured in a dangerous, unsafe, and/or defective way;
`
`The Rock ‘n Play incorporated several components and/or characteristics which led
`
`to infant death, such as that of the plaintiff;
`
`g.
`
`It failed to adequately warn the intended users of the Rock ‘n Play, of its dangerous
`
`condition(s);
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`It failed to provide adequate instructions for the Rock ‘n Play’s safe use;
`
`It failed to provide adequate assembly and/or use instructions and/or failed to
`
`adequately warn intended users of the risk of the Rock ‘n Play causing infant
`
`injury/death if it was not assembled/used properly;
`
`j.
`
`It failed to identify and/or remove dangerous and/or defective Rock ‘n Play from
`
`its product line when it knew or should have known that said Rock ‘n Play would
`
`likely be purchased by customers and pose a dangerous condition that can lead to
`
`infant injury/death;
`
`k.
`
`It failed to conduct investigations, testing, or redesign the Rock ‘n Play after infant
`
`injury/death was first reported to it;
`
`l.
`
`It failed to recall the Rock ‘n Play in a timely manner;
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 14 of 26
`
`m.
`
`It failed to sell, provide, and/or package the Rock ‘n Play with informative
`
`
`
`packaging and/or materials;
`
`n.
`
`It failed to counsel, instruct, inform, and/or teach its customers on proper assembly,
`
`installation, application, and/or usage techniques for the Rock ‘n Play; and,
`
`o.
`
`It failed to verify the safety of the Rock ‘n Play it sold both prior to and during its
`
`sale of the item.
`
`73.
`
`In accordance with Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 324 Conn. 402 (2016), the
`
`plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s product is claimed to be unreasonably dangerous under the
`
`“risk utility test” because:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`A reasonable alternative design could have reduced or avoided the danger; and
`
`The design of the product marketed is manifestly unreasonable in that the risk of
`
`harm from the product so clearly exceeds its utility that a reasonable, informed
`
`consumer would not purchase the product.
`
`74.
`
`The defendant also impliedly warranted that the product was of merchantable
`
`quality.
`
`75.
`
`The defendant breached this implied warranty of merchantability.
`
`76.
`
`As a result of the defendant’s breach of this implied warranty of merchantability,
`
`the plaintiff suffered the injuries, death, and losses more fully described above.
`
`77.
`
`The defendant also expressly warranted that the product(s) was/were fit for its
`
`ordinary purpose and safe for its intended uses.
`
`78.
`
`The plaintiff relied upon the express warranties made by the defendant.
`
`79.
`
`The defendant breached these express warranties.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 15 of 26
`
`80.
`
`As a result of the defendant’s breach of these express warranties, the plaintiff
`
`suffered the injuries and losses more fully described above.
`
`
`SIXTH COUNT:
`Tanequa Monique Brayboy and Mickey Fred, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Cali
`Dream Fred v. Mattel, Inc.- (Recklessness Pursuant to C.G.S. 52-240b)
`
`
`
`81.
`
`Paragraphs 45 through 80 of the Fifth Count are hereby incorporated by reference
`
`and made corresponding paragraphs of this, the Sixth Count, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`82.
`
`The defendant, MATTEL, INC., acted with reckless disregard for the safety of
`
`customers and/or product users, such as the plaintiff, to whom its Rock ‘n Play was promoted and
`
`sold for use, and as a direct and proximate consequence of MATTEL, INC.’s reckless disregard for
`
`the safety of its customers and/or product users, the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages pursuant
`
`to C.G.S. Sec. 52-240b.
`
`SEVENTH COUNT:
`Tanequa Monique Brayboy v. Mattel, Inc.- (Loss of Consortium)
`
`
`
`83.
`
`Paragraphs 45 through 80 of the Fifth Count are hereby incorporated and made
`
`paragraphs 45 through 80 of this Seventh Count as if fully set forth herein.
`
`84.
`
`At all relevant times, the plaintiff, TANEQUA BRAYBOY, was the lawful mother
`
`of the plaintiff, CALI DREAM FRED.
`
`85.
`
`As a result of the conduct of the defendant, MATTEL, INC., the plaintiff,
`
`TANEQUA BRAYBOY, has suffered a loss of affection, companionship, society, and consortium
`
`of CALI DREAM FRED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 16 of 26
`
`EIGHTH COUNT:
`Mickey Fred v. Mattel, Inc.- (Loss of Consortium)
`
`
`
`
`
`86.
`
`Paragraphs 45 through 80 of the Fifth Count are hereby incorporated and made
`
`paragraphs 45 through 80 of this Eighth Count as if fully set forth herein.
`
`87.
`
`At all relevant times, the plaintiff, MICKEY FRED, was the lawful father of the
`
`plaintiff, CALI DREAM FRED.
`
`88.
`
`As a result of the conduct of the defendant, MATTEL, INC., the plaintiff,
`
`MICKEY FRED, has suffered a loss of affection, companionship, society, and consortium of
`
`CALI DREAM FRED.
`
`NINTH COUNT:
`Tanequa Monique Brayboy and Mickey Fred, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Cali
`Dream Fred v. Walmart Inc.- (Product Liability)
`
`
`89.
`
`On March 31, 2019, CALI DREAM FRED lost her life. On June 6, 2019
`
`TANEQUA MONIQUE BRAYBOY and MICKEY FRED were appointed CO-
`
`ADMINISTRATORS of the Estate of CALI DREAM FRED in the District of Bridgeport,
`
`Probate Court No. PD48, and are duly authorized to act in that capacity.
`
`90.
`
`This action is brought as a “product liability claim” within the meaning of that term
`
`as described in section 52-572m(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes and pursuant to and in
`
`accordance with the terms and provisions of the Connecticut “Product Liability Law” sections 52-
`
`572m through 52-572r of the Connecticut General Statutes.
`
`91.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, the defendant, WALMART INC., was a foreign
`
`corporation licensed to do business in the State of Connecticut.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 17 of 26
`
`92.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, the defendant was engaged in the business of designing,
`
`manufacturing, distributing and/or selling toys, family products, and child products including, but
`
`not limited to, the “Auto Rock ‘n Play Sleeper”, hereinafter referred to as the “Rock ‘n Play”.
`
`93.
`
`The manufacture, distribution and/or sale of the Rock ‘n Play by the defendant was
`
`done with the reasonable expectation that said product was to be used or consumed in this State
`
`and/or was so used within the meaning of Connecticut General Statutes section 52-572m, et seq.
`
`94.
`
`The subject Rock ‘n Play was purchased in a retail setting at the Wal-Mart Store #
`
`2163 located at 465 Bridgeport Avenue in Shelton, Connecticut.
`
`95.
`
`The subject Rock ‘n Play was purchased from the defendant as a product intended
`
`to be used for its marketed and designed purpose: child rest, relaxation, placement, sleep, and/or
`
`sitting.
`
`96.
`
`The defendants, MATTEL, INC. and/or FISHER-PRICE, INC., first introduced
`
`the Rock ‘n Play line of products in or around 2009.
`
`97.
`
`Since the defendant introduced the Rock ‘n Play into the marketplace, it had
`
`advertised and represented to its customers that the Rock ‘n Play products were a safe and
`
`convenient baby product. It was represented and marketed that: “The inclined seat helps your baby
`
`sleep all night”, “Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long”, “This sleeper rocks,
`
`hands free!”, “This sleeper helps give your little one the customized soothing motions he or she
`
`loves, so you both can get some much needed shut-eye”, “Whether they need just a quick snooze
`
`or are ready to settle in for the night the Rock ‘n Play sleeper’s comfortable, restful environment
`
`and dual autorocking settings help teeny-tiny ones wind down and relax with a consistent routine”,
`
`“Inclined sleeper designed for all-night sleep”, “Baby can sleep at a comfy incline all night long!”
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 18 of 26
`
`98.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was marketed and represented as a product safe and suitable for
`
`use with infant aged children.
`
`99.
`
`On March 31, 2019, the plaintiff was placed in the subject Rock ‘n Play sleeper for
`
`rest while in a state of good health and liveliness.
`
`100.
`
` On March 31, 2019, the plaintiff was later found unresponsive while still lying in
`
`the subject Rock ‘n Play. The plaintiff was ultimately pronounced dead on March 31, 2019 at 5:52
`
`a.m. She was two months, five days old at the time of her death.
`
`101. Unknown to the plaintiff and her family, dozens of infants had previously died as a
`
`result of the dangerous and defective condition of the Rock ‘n Play.
`
`102. The defendant had knowledge of the dangerous and defective nature of the Rock ‘n
`
`Play prior to the plaintiff’s death.
`
`103. The defendant had been put on notice of other infant deaths prior to that of the
`
`plaintiff.
`
`104. The defendant had been urged to stop selling and/or recall the Rock ‘n Play prior
`
`to the plaintiff’s death, yet failed to do so.
`
`105. The line of Rock ‘n Play products was not recalled until after more than thirty
`
`infants died, such as the plaintiff, on April 12, 2019, less than two weeks after the plaintiff’s death.
`
`106. The design, construction, and implementation of the Rock ‘n Play was dangerous
`
`and defective in one or more of the following ways:
`
`a.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play incorporated a dangerous and/or defective design which was not
`
`flat and forced an infant to sleep in an “L” shape with the knees flexed up toward
`
`the abdomen;
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 19 of 26
`
`b.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play held infants in an inclined position which allowed their head to
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`roll downward and to the side- closing off the airway;
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was soft and plush rather than firm;
`
`The padding utilized and/or incorporated in the Rock ‘n Play created a suffocation
`
`risk when infants turn their head;
`
`e.
`
`It allowed and/or caused infants to roll from their back to their stomach or side
`
`while unrestrained; and,
`
`f.
`
`The Rock ‘n Play was marketed as a sleeper, when in fact it was unsuitable and
`
`unsafe for overnight or prolonged sleep.
`
`107. As a result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product(s), specifically the
`
`Rock ‘n Play sleeper, the deceased plaintiff, CALI DREAM FRED, suffered the following
`
`injuries and losses:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Positional asphyxiation;
`
`Suffocation and hypoxemia;
`
`Anoxic injury;
`
`Death; and,
`
`Pre-death pain and suffering both mental and physical.
`
`108. As a further result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product(s),
`
`specifically the Rock ‘n Play, the plaintiff was forced to spend large sums of money for hospital
`
`and emergent medical care, and funeral expenses.
`
`109. As a further result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product, the plaintiff
`
`has suffered the loss of life itself, and is thus unable to participate in and enjoy any activities of
`
`life.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00384-RNC Document 35 Filed 04/14/21 Page 20 of 26
`
`110. As a further result of the defective condition of the defendant’s product, the plaintiff
`
`has suffered a loss of future earning capacity due to her death.
`
`111. At the time the defendant manufactured, distributed and/or sold the product(s)
`
`which is the subject of this lawsuit, it was engaged in the business of selling infant, child, and
`
`family products, such as the Rock ‘n Play sleeper and was a “product seller” within the meaning
`
`of section 52-572m of the Connecticut General Statutes.
`
`112. These defects caused