“These Recalled Kitchen Steppers have a dangerous defect that involves the bar handle used for consumer stability and balance. The safety bar can detach and even break off during use by the consumer. This is due to a weak connection to the main frame of the unit.”

💡 Dorel’s own recall notice admits the defect resulted from a weak structural connection, not user error or misuse.

“So far, there have been 34 reported instances of this bar breaking or disconnecting during use, causing head injuries.”

💡 Documented injuries including head trauma demonstrate the serious safety risk posed by the defect.

“During the use of the Cosco Kitchen Stepper, the safety bar detached, causing the Plaintiff to fall. As a result of the fall, the Plaintiff sustained minor injuries and experienced body pain.”

💡 The plaintiff’s experience illustrates the real-world harm consumers suffered from the defective design.

“Around August 2025, Dorel recalled about 302,000 of the above referenced Recalled Kitchen Steppers.”

💡 The massive scale of the recall shows hundreds of thousands of consumers purchased defective products.

“Defendant has offered an inadequate remedy. Consumers must contact Dorel to receive a free repair kit, which includes shipping. The repair kit includes a sliding locking mechanism that attaches to the safety bar to prevent the safety bar from detaching or breaking during use.”

💡 Dorel refused to provide refunds, instead placing the burden on consumers to fix the company’s defective design.

“Plaintiff is still burdened with a Kitchen Stepper that has been devalued by Defendant’s actions because the value of a Kitchen Stepper with a known and dangerous defect is worth much less than a Kitchen Stepper with a proper design.”

💡 Even with the repair kit, consumers are left with products worth far less than what they paid.

“Since February of 2021, Defendant has designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold the Recalled Kitchen Steppers.”

💡 Dorel sold the defective product for over four years before issuing a recall.

“Defendant failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the risks of the Kitchen Steppers before or at the time of sale, particularly if it continued selling the recalled products despite knowledge of the recall or other safety concerns.”

💡 Dorel had a duty to warn consumers but failed to disclose the known defect at the point of sale.

“As the manufacturer, Defendant was in a superior position to know about the defective Kitchen Steppers and their dangerous propensity to cause injury. However, Defendant failed to warn consumers, retailers, and regulatory agencies about the risks when it had the opportunity to do so.”

💡 Dorel possessed safety information but concealed it from all stakeholders including regulators.

“Defendant owed Plaintiff and the Classes a duty to reasonably and safely design, manufacture, market, and sell the Recalled Kitchen Steppers. Defendant breached this duty as the design and manufacture of the Recalled Kitchen Steppers were defective, which caused the Kitchen Steppers to not be fit or suitable for their intended purposes.”

💡 Legal duty to produce safe products was breached by knowingly manufacturing defective steppers.

“The design of the Recalled Kitchen Steppers’ defect is unacceptable as other Kitchen Steppers produced by other companies and manufacturers work properly and do not have this same defect. In fact, Defendant has produced other Kitchen Steppers that do not have defects similar to the Recalled Kitchen Steppers.”

💡 Dorel could have produced safe steppers but chose not to, as evidenced by competitors and its own other products.

“Defendant failed to disclose that the Kitchen Steppers have a Defect. Defendant induced Plaintiff and the New York Subclass to purchase Defendant’s Kitchen Steppers because had they known of the Defect, Plaintiff would not have bought the Kitchen Steppers.”

💡 Material omission of the defect induced purchases consumers would not have made with full information.

“Defendant advertised the Kitchen Steppers as safe, which induced consumers including Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members to buy Defendant’s Kitchen Steppers.”

💡 Active false advertising about safety, not just omission, violated consumer protection laws.

“Selling and/or distributing the Recalled Kitchen Steppers while negligently and/or intentionally not providing effective securing mechanisms; and Systematically failing to provide consumers with safe Kitchen Steppers in multiple states.”

💡 The negligence was not isolated but a systematic pattern across Dorel’s entire distribution network.

“Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ injuries were foreseeable as Defendant had received complaints from Plaintiff and Class Members regarding failure to provide a safe and effective securing mechanism in the Recalled Kitchen Steppers at the time of purchase of Defendant’s Product.”

💡 Dorel received complaints about the defect but continued selling the product, making injuries foreseeable and preventable.