Cranberry couple sues Target over toy box
A Cranberry couple whose 18-month-old daughter suffered devastating injuries when a toy box lid fell and trapped her neck filed a lawsuit in Allegheny County today against retail chain Target.
Camryn Surman, daughter of Eric and Laura Surman, suffered a "devastating anoxic brain injury" when the lid of the rectangular, brown wicker trunk sold by Target cut off her air supply the morning of July 20. The toddler, now 2, is in a persistent vegetative state.
"It's as bad as it gets," said John Gismondi, the Surmans' attorney. "She's now home on a feeding tube, with the family taking care of her. She has no movement of her arms and legs. She can't really speak, and can't breathe on her own."
A representative with Minneapolis-based Target was not immediately available to comment.
The 28-page lawsuit says the trunk either should have been equipped with a lid support mechanism to prevent it from suddenly snapping shut or a warning that states the trunk is not suitable for children or poses a risk of child suffocation.
The "brown rectangular truck" sold on Target's Web site did not have such a warning or safety device, the lawsuit states. Laura Surman purchased the trunk online. The lawsuit does not identify the trunk's brand name or manufacturer.
Target removed the product and two similar trunks from its Web site since the incident, along with customer reviews that say the trunk is appropriate for children, said Gismondi, of the Downtown law firm Gismondi & Associates P.C.
Gismondi said Target has not issued a recall of the wicker trunks or offered to retrofit them with a lid support. The lawsuit seeks a litany of damages including money to cover Camryn Surman's medical expenses and pain and suffering.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.