A lawsuit has been filed by the parents of a toddler who suffered permanent brain damage and will require a feeding tube for the rest of her life after a piece of a sticky candy was stuck in her throat. Her family is seeking $50,000 in compensation and punitive damages.
RELATED STORIES: T.I. And Tiny Face Shocking Allegations In New Lawsuit
The lawsuit against Frankford Candy & Chocolate Co. by the parents of three-year-old Amelie Paredes Sotelo, who suffered permanent brain damage and spastic quadriplegia after consuming a Candy Land Gummy Dot. The gummy candy allegedly became lodged in Amelie’s throat, blocking her airways and causing a life-threatening situation. The lawsuit claims that the candy’s extreme stickiness and lack of pliability were the main factors contributing to the tragic incident as reported by the Daily Mail.
Last December, Amelie consumed a Candy Land Gummy Dot, a product inspired by the popular Hasbro board game. Despite having previously eaten similar gummy candies without any issues, this particular candy became a dangerous obstruction in Amelie’s throat. The candy’s excessive stickiness and inability to break down when exposed to saliva turned it into a glue-like substance that adhered to the tissue of her palate. The incident was captured on a Ring camera, showing the distressing moment when Amelie choked on the candy while her parents desperately tried to dislodge it.
RELATED STORIES: Producer Nigel Lythgoe Faces Second Lawsuit From ‘All American Girl’ Contestants
Amelie’s parents rushed her to the hospital, where doctors faced significant difficulties removing the gummy candy from her throat. The candy’s extraordinary stickiness and lack of pliability made the suctioning process extremely challenging. Tragically, Amelie was deprived of oxygen for an extended period, resulting in permanent brain damage and spastic quadriplegia, which has left her completely paralyzed. The family’s attorney, Tom Bosworth, argues that the Candy Land Gummy Dot was negligently, recklessly, and defectively designed.
‘A product like this needs to have some sort of warning on it. You don’t necessarily know when you’re eating a candy what its consistency is, the stickiness, and whether it’s a problem.’
The lawsuit alleges that the candy’s composition, mixture of ingredients, excessive stickiness, size, and shape were all factors contributing to the hazardous situation. Moreover, the candy packaging lacked any choking hazard or safety warning, leaving consumers unaware of the potential risks.Their primary goal is to ensure that these gummy candies are either removed from shelves or modified to include a clear and accurate warning about the true dangers of the product, including its potential choking hazard.
Amelie’s mother emphasizes the need for a noticeable warning on the packaging, as it can be deceiving and may not adequately convey the candy’s consistency and stickiness: ‘I would love to get those gummies removed, or if that’s not possible, at least get a warning and a warning that’s big enough for parents to see because the packaging can be very deceiving,’
The candy company did not release a statement about the lawsuit or the incident.