The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost

Spoiler:

Quote:

Feds sue Nap Nanny infant-recliner maker
Dec 7, 2012 1:00 PM

After the deaths of five infants using Nap Nanny infant recliners, the Consumer Product Safety Commission sued the products' manufacturer in an effort to prevent further tragedy. The recliner was originally recalled in 2010 after the first reported death in a Nap Nanny. On December 5th, the CPSC took the unusual step of filing an administrative complaint due to defects in the products' design, warnings, and instructions, alleging that the products "create a substantial risk of injury to the public."

Four of the five children who died were in Nap Nanny Generation Two recliners and a fifth death involved the Chill model. If a child is in a recliner that's placed in a crib and rolls out, the child could suffocate if his or her face presses up against the crib bumpers. In addition to the reported deaths, the CPSC says it has received more than 70 reports of children falling out of the product.

In the 2010 recall, consumers who owned first-generation models of the recliner were issued an $80 coupon towards the purchase of a second-generation Nap Nanny. Those with second-generation models (the ones associated with four of the five deaths) were told to stop using it until they viewed new product instructions and warnings on the product's website.

But that was not enough, according to CPSC spokesperson Scott Wolfson, who said, "An adequate corrective action to the safety hazard was not presented by the company, so the CPSC took the rare and serious step of pursuing an administrative complaint against the manufacturer of these products." Wolfson said the CPSC hopes a judge will rule in its favor, and "that there will be a mandatory recall that would result in a refund for consumers."

Asked to comment on the CPSC lawsuit, Leslie Gudel, owner of Baby Matters, LLC of Berwyn, Pa., manufacturer of Nap Nanny and Nap Nanny Chill, referred to a statement on her company's website. "We do not believe the complaint has merit and stand behind the safety of our product when used as instructed," she stated. "The fact that infants have died 'while using' the Nap Nanny improperly, such as when used in a crib where the child could suffocate on a crib bumper or a blanket, does not mean our product caused the child's death or is hazardous."

Child safety advocates, including Consumers Union (the policy arm of Consumer Reports), applauded CPSC's action. "We are glad to see the CPSC use the full extent of its authorities under the law to protect babies and children," stated Ami Gadhia, Senior Policy Counsel with Consumers Union. This action, she said, "reminds manufacturers that they must make safety a top priority."

The safest place for a baby to sleep is in a full-size crib with only a mattress and fitted sheet--no bumpers, blankets, pillows, stuffed animals, or other items. See our cribs buying guide. Subscribers can see our latest crib Ratings for safe, durable, and easy-to-use models. New cribs are the only sleep environments that have to meet federal safety standards, making them the safest places for babies to sleep. (Play yards must also meet federal safety guidelines. See our Ratings and buying advice.)

—Artemis DiBenedetto

A MESSAGE FROM LESLIE GUDEL – OWNER/FOUNDER NAP NANNY

Recently the CPSC filed an administrative complaint against our company seeking legal authority to stop the sale of all Nap Nanny recliners on the theory that the Nap Nanny is a hazardous product. We do not believe the complaint has merit and stand behind the safety of our product when used as instructed.

The CPSC’s complaint notes that five infants have died “while using” the Nap Nanny. The loss of an infant is an unthinkable tragedy, and I am truly heartbroken for the families who have lost a child. But the fact that infants have died “while using” the Nap Nanny improperly, such as when used in a crib where the child could suffocate on a crib bumper or a blanket, does not mean our product caused the child’s death or is hazardous.

We at Nap Nanny went to great lengths to make the safest product possible. Nap Nanny has helped thousands of babies and their tired parents the last four years. No infant using the Nap Nanny properly has ever suffered an injury requiring medical attention. The Nap Nanny was designed and constructed for use only on the floor with the harness secured.

The emotional connection Nap Nanny users have experienced with the product has been the driving force behind our company and the testimonials we have received speak for themselves.

In July 2010, Nap Nanny participated in a voluntary recall after learning that infants could get sideways and one infant tragically died while sleeping in the Nap Nanny while in a crib. Consumers were asked to discontinue using the Gen1 recliner and new, improved warnings and instructions were issued for the Gen2 product. The Gen2 remained on the market and those who owned this model were asked to view an instructional video. The new warnings for the Gen2 were authored in part and approved by the CPSC and placed on the outside of the Nap Nanny so they were visible at all times. The recall was followed by the launch of the Nap Nanny Chill in January 2011. This newer model provided a snugger fit for smaller babies, while better containing older infants.

Early this year, after learning of three additional incidents in the Gen2, one predating the recall and two since the recall, Nap Nanny began several months of discussions with the CPSC, crafting a plan to remind consumers of how to properly use the product. The CPSC wanted consumers to stop using the discontinued Gen1 and Gen2 Nap Nannys.

The CPSC advised us that it had conducted a technical analysis on the Nap Nanny Chill, and deemed it a suitable upgrade to our older models.

In July of this year we learned that an infant died in a crib in which a Nap Nanny Chill was present. Unfortunately, the baby was placed in the Nap Nanny without a cover and without being secured by the harness. The infant was found in the crib, outside the Nap Nanny, near loose blankets. The cause of death was Sudden Unexplained Infant Death with accidental asphyxia not excluded.

Upon learning the news of this incident, the CPSC reversed course and informed us that it deemed the Nap Nanny Chill unsafe because of what the Commission described as “reasonably foreseeable use.” In addition, the CPSC now says the warning labels are “inadequate.” These are the same warning labels the CPSC helped us write and approved two years ago. They are also claiming the harness is “defective” in that it’s difficult to adjust the waist straps, making it less likely parents will use the harness. The changes to the harness on the Nap Nanny Chill were made at the urging of the CPSC two years ago.

Since the announcement on December 5th, numerous news reports have quoted the CPSC as saying they are aware of 70 reports of children nearly falling out of the Nap Nanny. What they don’t say is which Nap Nanny model those reports are associated with. We have not received a single report about an infant getting over the side of the Nap Nanny Chill. Rotation in the Nap Nanny was an issue in the Gen1 and Gen2, but addressed in the Chill product we have been selling for the last two years.

The filing of CPSC’s complaint does not mean it’s illegal to sell the Nap Nanny. Anyone who wants to sell the Nap Nanny certainly can, for now. The CPSC may succeed in its attempt to legally ban the sale of the product, but there’s no telling whether that will happen or how long that will take. It matters little, because very few Nap Nannys remain on the shelves. The ongoing battle with the CPSC cost us so much money that it forced us out of business a month ago.

Another small business is gone. Twenty-two Americans are out of work between Nap Nanny and our supplier. This doesn’t take into account the financial impact our closure has had on our other U.S. suppliers.

For those consumers who have reached out to us since learning we closed, THANK YOU for your support. It means more to us than you will ever know. For those of you who have asked for a Nap Nanny and can’t find one at a retailer, I’m sorry we can’t be there for you. I set out to make a product that comforted babies and improved infant sleep. I know we accomplished this mission. I’m sorry we won’t be around to carry it on any longer.

Very Sincerely,
Leslie Gudel

Author:	LadyKate [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
http://news.consumerreports.org/baby/2012/12/feds-sue-nap-nanny-infant-recliner-maker.html Spoiler: Quote: Feds sue Nap Nanny infant-recliner maker Dec 7, 2012 1:00 PM After the deaths of five infants using Nap Nanny infant recliners, the Consumer Product Safety Commission sued the products' manufacturer in an effort to prevent further tragedy. The recliner was originally recalled in 2010 after the first reported death in a Nap Nanny. On December 5th, the CPSC took the unusual step of filing an administrative complaint due to defects in the products' design, warnings, and instructions, alleging that the products "create a substantial risk of injury to the public." Four of the five children who died were in Nap Nanny Generation Two recliners and a fifth death involved the Chill model. If a child is in a recliner that's placed in a crib and rolls out, the child could suffocate if his or her face presses up against the crib bumpers. In addition to the reported deaths, the CPSC says it has received more than 70 reports of children falling out of the product. In the 2010 recall, consumers who owned first-generation models of the recliner were issued an $80 coupon towards the purchase of a second-generation Nap Nanny. Those with second-generation models (the ones associated with four of the five deaths) were told to stop using it until they viewed new product instructions and warnings on the product's website. But that was not enough, according to CPSC spokesperson Scott Wolfson, who said, "An adequate corrective action to the safety hazard was not presented by the company, so the CPSC took the rare and serious step of pursuing an administrative complaint against the manufacturer of these products." Wolfson said the CPSC hopes a judge will rule in its favor, and "that there will be a mandatory recall that would result in a refund for consumers." Asked to comment on the CPSC lawsuit, Leslie Gudel, owner of Baby Matters, LLC of Berwyn, Pa., manufacturer of Nap Nanny and Nap Nanny Chill, referred to a statement on her company's website. "We do not believe the complaint has merit and stand behind the safety of our product when used as instructed," she stated. "The fact that infants have died 'while using' the Nap Nanny improperly, such as when used in a crib where the child could suffocate on a crib bumper or a blanket, does not mean our product caused the child's death or is hazardous." Child safety advocates, including Consumers Union (the policy arm of Consumer Reports), applauded CPSC's action. "We are glad to see the CPSC use the full extent of its authorities under the law to protect babies and children," stated Ami Gadhia, Senior Policy Counsel with Consumers Union. This action, she said, "reminds manufacturers that they must make safety a top priority." The safest place for a baby to sleep is in a full-size crib with only a mattress and fitted sheet--no bumpers, blankets, pillows, stuffed animals, or other items. See our cribs buying guide. Subscribers can see our latest crib Ratings for safe, durable, and easy-to-use models. New cribs are the only sleep environments that have to meet federal safety standards, making them the safest places for babies to sleep. (Play yards must also meet federal safety guidelines. See our Ratings and buying advice.) —Artemis DiBenedetto http://www.napnanny.com/ Quote: A MESSAGE FROM LESLIE GUDEL – OWNER/FOUNDER NAP NANNY Recently the CPSC filed an administrative complaint against our company seeking legal authority to stop the sale of all Nap Nanny recliners on the theory that the Nap Nanny is a hazardous product. We do not believe the complaint has merit and stand behind the safety of our product when used as instructed. The CPSC’s complaint notes that five infants have died “while using” the Nap Nanny. The loss of an infant is an unthinkable tragedy, and I am truly heartbroken for the families who have lost a child. But the fact that infants have died “while using” the Nap Nanny improperly, such as when used in a crib where the child could suffocate on a crib bumper or a blanket, does not mean our product caused the child’s death or is hazardous. We at Nap Nanny went to great lengths to make the safest product possible. Nap Nanny has helped thousands of babies and their tired parents the last four years. No infant using the Nap Nanny properly has ever suffered an injury requiring medical attention. The Nap Nanny was designed and constructed for use only on the floor with the harness secured. The emotional connection Nap Nanny users have experienced with the product has been the driving force behind our company and the testimonials we have received speak for themselves. In July 2010, Nap Nanny participated in a voluntary recall after learning that infants could get sideways and one infant tragically died while sleeping in the Nap Nanny while in a crib. Consumers were asked to discontinue using the Gen1 recliner and new, improved warnings and instructions were issued for the Gen2 product. The Gen2 remained on the market and those who owned this model were asked to view an instructional video. The new warnings for the Gen2 were authored in part and approved by the CPSC and placed on the outside of the Nap Nanny so they were visible at all times. The recall was followed by the launch of the Nap Nanny Chill in January 2011. This newer model provided a snugger fit for smaller babies, while better containing older infants. Early this year, after learning of three additional incidents in the Gen2, one predating the recall and two since the recall, Nap Nanny began several months of discussions with the CPSC, crafting a plan to remind consumers of how to properly use the product. The CPSC wanted consumers to stop using the discontinued Gen1 and Gen2 Nap Nannys. The CPSC advised us that it had conducted a technical analysis on the Nap Nanny Chill, and deemed it a suitable upgrade to our older models. In July of this year we learned that an infant died in a crib in which a Nap Nanny Chill was present. Unfortunately, the baby was placed in the Nap Nanny without a cover and without being secured by the harness. The infant was found in the crib, outside the Nap Nanny, near loose blankets. The cause of death was Sudden Unexplained Infant Death with accidental asphyxia not excluded. Upon learning the news of this incident, the CPSC reversed course and informed us that it deemed the Nap Nanny Chill unsafe because of what the Commission described as “reasonably foreseeable use.” In addition, the CPSC now says the warning labels are “inadequate.” These are the same warning labels the CPSC helped us write and approved two years ago. They are also claiming the harness is “defective” in that it’s difficult to adjust the waist straps, making it less likely parents will use the harness. The changes to the harness on the Nap Nanny Chill were made at the urging of the CPSC two years ago. Since the announcement on December 5th, numerous news reports have quoted the CPSC as saying they are aware of 70 reports of children nearly falling out of the Nap Nanny. What they don’t say is which Nap Nanny model those reports are associated with. We have not received a single report about an infant getting over the side of the Nap Nanny Chill. Rotation in the Nap Nanny was an issue in the Gen1 and Gen2, but addressed in the Chill product we have been selling for the last two years. The filing of CPSC’s complaint does not mean it’s illegal to sell the Nap Nanny. Anyone who wants to sell the Nap Nanny certainly can, for now. The CPSC may succeed in its attempt to legally ban the sale of the product, but there’s no telling whether that will happen or how long that will take. It matters little, because very few Nap Nannys remain on the shelves. The ongoing battle with the CPSC cost us so much money that it forced us out of business a month ago. Another small business is gone. Twenty-two Americans are out of work between Nap Nanny and our supplier. This doesn’t take into account the financial impact our closure has had on our other U.S. suppliers. For those consumers who have reached out to us since learning we closed, THANK YOU for your support. It means more to us than you will ever know. For those of you who have asked for a Nap Nanny and can’t find one at a retailer, I’m sorry we can’t be there for you. I set out to make a product that comforted babies and improved infant sleep. I know we accomplished this mission. I’m sorry we won’t be around to carry it on any longer. Very Sincerely, Leslie Gudel

Author:	Midgen [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:
This is the device in question..

Author:	Dash [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:12 am ]
Post subject:
Sad. Seems perfectly fine to me, again if used as intended. Kids squirm, gotta strap em in. The even sent us a harness for those bumbo chairs recently.

Author:	Xequecal [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
While I don't know what it is about this product that's unsafe, the fact that it's "safe if used as intended" is not really an excuse. A lot of supremely dangerous stuff is safe if used as intended. Even the infamous Jarts game was perfectly safe if you followed the instructions. That didn't change the fact that it was still basically a set of giant weighted spears.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
"Safe if used as intended" is not an excuse at all. There was nothing wrong with Jarts, there was something wrong with the people using them wrong. Pretty much any object is dangerous if not used in the way its designed to be used.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9453	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Khross [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
... What's so **** offensive about allowing people to witness, incur, or otherwise experience the consequences of their own actions?

Author:	Müs [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
Khross wrote: ... What's so **** offensive about allowing people to witness, incur, or otherwise experience the consequences of their own actions? BECAUSE CHILDREN!

Author:	Corolinth [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:
If we allowed people to experience the consequences of their actions, stupid people would have their babies die on them instead of growing up to propagate their genetic line. That's natural selection. I'm sure you can see how that's objectionable. Thou shalt not improve upon God's design and whatnot. It's the same problem we had with rare earth magnets.

Author:	Rafael [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
Xequecal wrote: While I don't know what it is about this product that's unsafe, the fact that it's "safe if used as intended" is not really an excuse. A lot of supremely dangerous stuff is safe if used as intended. Even the infamous Jarts game was perfectly safe if you followed the instructions. That didn't change the fact that it was still basically a set of giant weighted spears. This line of thinking is so borderline retarded I don't even know what to say. As Diamondeye points out, basically anything is dangerous if misused. If that was the standard we used, no one would be allowed to make, buy, sell or create anything for their own use or anyone else's.

Author:	Corolinth [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:
Liberals - use only as intended

Author:	Midgen [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:
I fully expect that the CPSC will make me stop building guitars as soon as someone hurts themselves with one of them :/

Author:	Khross [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
Sooner or later, we'll read this headline ... "CSPC orders photosynthetic plants to stop producing oxygen."

Author:	SuiNeko [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:34 pm ]
Post subject:
Well yes. It's a fire hazard.

Author:	Hopwin [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:
I guess I come down on the side of: "if your baby chair can kill a baby then you did it wrong and should be out of business."

Author:	Aizle [ Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:22 am ]
Post subject:
Thanks Lydiaa for actually bringing facts and rationality into the conversation.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Midgen [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
SuiNeko wrote: Well yes. It's a fire hazard. Ok, I LOL'd

Author:	Jasmy [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
Hopwin the baby chair didn't kill any babies...the stupid parents that used it IN a crib with blankets, pillows, or what-have-you killed the baby and blamed it on the chair. It was not meant to be used in a crib.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
A car safety seat can kill a baby if improperly installed. Babies are delicate. Almost anything can be dangerous to them. Expecting baby products to be foolproof is absurd. The basic assumption in making a baby product is that the parents give enough of a **** about their kid to not use it in a manner the accompanying documentation expressly says not to.

Author:	Jasmy [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
Diamondeye wrote: A car safety seat can kill a baby if improperly installed. Babies are delicate. Almost anything can be dangerous to them. Expecting baby products to be foolproof is absurd. The basic assumption in making a baby product is that the parents give enough of a **** about their kid to not use it in a manner the accompanying documentation expressly says not to. This 100%!! When my son was a baby, we used the same crib my parents used for me and my siblings. A crib used in the mid 50s to early 60s is not considered safe now and wasn't when my son was born in 1983, but we had no problems with the crib. My son, on the other hand, was a problem and decided to crawl out of it one early morning and fell, but that wasn't the fault of the crib, it was the fault of a mother and father that slept in a few minutes too long.

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:40 am ]
Post subject:
In looking at that photo, I can say that I would not buy that item. Even used properly. I don't like the angles. Kids can contort in horrifying ways - can't tell you how many times I've looked over and thought one of my kids had multiple serious fractures only to find out they are fine. But, they say they haven't had any injuries when it was used properly, so whatever. That I don't like it doesn't mean it should come off the market.

Author:	Dash [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:
The problem is though, at this point I think people are conditioned to think that so long as they dont set the seat on fire with the child still in it, or place it on a major highway while they take a shower, no harm should be able to come to them. Personally i always assume my 7 month old will be able to squirm out of anything. She hasnt yet, and neither did my 4 year old, but YOU NEVER KNOW!

Author:	Corolinth [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
Society has developed the impression that it is the engineer's responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity. The notion that a baby walker might one day have to be constructed with a lightning rod to protect infants who's parents take them out in thunderstorms is not all that far-fetched.

Author:	Lydiaa [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
Since this is pretty much part of my job I thought I'd weight in on this conversation. While it is unfortunate that this company had to endure the closing down of their business, and keeping in mind I am not 100% familiar with the US regulation on this sort of things, my comments may or may not be used as advice... Now that the disclaimer part of things are done. What this company failed to do was show what is commonly known as "due diligence" in the face of a consumer level recall. If this company was ISO 9001 certified, their corrective/preventative action would require a risk analysis on their product when the first death occurred. If found possible future risk was possible, a preventative action would have been put in place to ensure no further death occurred. This usually involved a letter issued to the customers who brought this product, or in the case where customer base can not be established, a (minimum) half page ad must be taken out in all the major newspapers to inform the consumer of this problem, as well as a big red warning on their website. In the case where the customer can be contacted, the minimum of 1 letter, followed by 3 calls directly to the consumer by the customer service team (with time date recorded). In the case where the letter was received and read, a customer acknowledgement of contact should be signed and returned to the company. While this sounds like a lot of work, this is what most regulated regulators consider “due diligence” in the face of a product causing death. Also as part of that preventative action, the company needed to show that an investigation was carried out on the flaw of the design causing such problems. A second opinion (from an engineer in this case) must be sought and their CV and product evaluation is recorded as part of the approval for the design of future products. Due to the size of this company, it may not have been feasible for them to hire a person to do all these for them, and a consultant should have been contacted, but most companies do not want to pay the large sums of money quality consultants charge. This was an unfortunate event, but in this case, I do not believe the company did the due diligence required, and as a result had to be let go.

Author:	Hopwin [ Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
Jasmy wrote: Hopwin the baby chair didn't kill any babies...the stupid parents that used it IN a crib with blankets, pillows, or what-have-you killed the baby and blamed it on the chair. It was not meant to be used in a crib. I am sorry to me the only reasonable ways to be killed by furniture are: 1) Someone dropped it on me from some height or 2) Someone beat me with it.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Fed Kills Another Small Business; 22 Jobs Lost
Hopwin wrote: Jasmy wrote: Hopwin the baby chair didn't kill any babies...the stupid parents that used it IN a crib with blankets, pillows, or what-have-you killed the baby and blamed it on the chair. It was not meant to be used in a crib. I am sorry to me the only reasonable ways to be killed by furniture are: 1) Someone dropped it on me from some height or 2) Someone beat me with it. I find it strange that you think there's a reasonable way to be killed by furniture at all.