Scott v. Global Vasion, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SANDRA SCOTT, individually and as )

Independent Administratrix of the )

Estate of FLOYD T. SCOTT, deceased, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 20-cv-1287-DWD

)

GLOBAL VASION, INC,, )

AMAZON.COM, INC,, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Sandra Scott, individually, and as the Independent Administratrix of the

Estate of Floyd T. Scott, brings this wrongful death and survival action against

Defendants Global Vasion, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. related to the sale of electrically

heated socks which she alleges caused the death of her spouse, Floyd Scott (Doc. 67).

Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. have been resolved (Doc. 105),

leaving only the claims against Defendant Global Vasion, Inc (hereinafter “Global

Vasion”). Thes claims include:

e Strict Product Liability (Count I), Negligence (Count II), and Breach of

Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count V) brought pursuant to the

Illinois Wrongful Death Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 180/1 et seq.;

e Strict Product Liability (Count II), Negligence (Count IV), and Breach of

Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count VI) brought pursuant to

the Illinois Survival Act, 755 Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-6; and

e Violation of the Illinois Family Expense Statute, 750 III. Comp. Stat. Ann.

65/15, (Count VI).

(Doc. 65).1

On August 11, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment

against Defendant Global Vasion on the issue of liability, but reserved for a hearing the

issue of damages (Doc. 60). On November 28, 2023, the Court held an evidentiary hearing

on the issue of damages pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B) (Doc. 104). Although

proper notice was served upon Defendant Global Vasion, neither Global Vasion nor its

counsel attended. After hearing evidence regarding Plaintiff's claims against Global

Vasion and the resultant injuries, the Court took the matter under advisement to access

the amount of damages, if any, Plaintiff should be awarded as part of the default

judgment against Global Vasion.

Factual Background

The following factual summary is comprised of information documented in the

record as well as testimony and exhibits admitted during the damages hearing held on

November 28, 2023. On December 13, 2018, Decedent Floyd T. Scott a/k/a Toby put on

a pair of Defendant Global Vasion’s “Electric Heated Socks with Rechargeable Battery for

Chronically Cold Feet” (the “Product” or “Socks”). Toby’s stepdaughter, Shana

Anderson, had purchased the Socks on an Amazon website for Toby. The Socks were

\These Counts were all included in Plaintiff’s original complaint (Doc. 1), which was the operative

complaint at the time default judgment as to liability was entered against Defendant Global Vasion, Inc.

(Doc. 60). The original complaint also included counts for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act

brought against Defendant Global Vasion, Inc. pursuant to the Illinois Wrongful Death Act and Illinois

Survival Act (Doc. 1, at Counts III and IV). However, those counts were dismissed (Doc. 60) and not

revived in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 65).

marketed to consumers as safe and effective, and were advertised, packaged, and

warranted as “good for blood circulation” and for people with “chronically cold feet”,

like Toby, who suffered from Type 2 diabetes with peripheral neuropathy. Toby’s

stepdaughter testified that this marketing influenced her decision to purchase

Defendant’s electric heated Socks.

Toby wore the Socks for approximately 3 hours before removing the batteries and

placing them back on the charger. He continued to wear the socks without batteries until

the following morning. When Toby removed the Socks, he discovered a large burn blister

to his right heel which soon thereafter popped and opened into a large bloody wound,

measuring approximately 10x8 centimeters. Toby was unable to feel the Socks burning

his skin because of his diabetic neuropathy.

On or about December 15, 2018, Toby went to the emergency room at Washington

County Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a second to third degree open burn

wound to his right heel. Toby was referred to a wound care specialist for treatment. The

wound care specialist performed multiple debridements of necrosing skin and prescribed

oral antibiotics. Despite continued treatment, the wound continued to worsen in severity

over the following weeks. On February 12, 2019, Toby was diagnosed with sepsis,

gangrene, acute kidney injury due to underlying sepsis, tachycardia, and tachypnea, all

noted to be secondary to his foot infection. Toby was then transferred via ambulance to

Missouri Baptist Hospital, where he stayed for 10 days and further testing revealed that

the infection had gone into his bone, with tunneling and skin breakdown spreading from

the heel wound up into his leg. The heel itself was mostly destroyed, and doctors stated

that there was a high probability Toby would require amputation of the foot.

On February 22, 2019, Toby was discharged home with a PICC line for

administration of IV antibiotics, a wound vac, and home health care to maintain the

wound vac. Toby’s wound did not heal, and his routine labs remained abnormal,

indicative of ongoing acute kidney injury secondary to the sepsis caused by the burn

wound. On April 26, 2019, Toby was admitted to St. Mary’s Hospital and his medical

records revealed that the treatment of sepsis was “at odds with treating [his] heart

failure.” On May 13, 2019, Toby was taken by an ambulance to Washington County

Hospital, and then to Missouri Baptist Hospital where he was diagnosed with congestive

heart failure with a secondary diagnosis of sepsis and right heel ulcer, and MRSA. Two

days later Toby became unresponsive, and he was intubated but remained

hemodynamically unstable, comatose, and in cardiogenic shock. Toby’s ventilator was

removed at the recommendations of his doctors. Toby died shortly thereafter at the age

of 49.

Plaintiff submitted expert reports from an electrical engineer, forensic pathologist,

and human factors expert. Mr. Will Truss, an electrical engineer at Schaefer Engineering,

Inc., performed extensive testing and analysis on the electrical heated socks worn by

Toby, as well as identical exemplar socks. Mr. Truss found that the Socks were designed

with no temperature feedback or regulation device that would prevent the Socks from

reaching harmful temperature levels. Further, the Socks worn by Toby consistently

reached temperatures in excess of 170 degrees Fahrenheit, with a maximum tested

reading of 176.9 degrees Fahrenheit. The exemplar socks similarly reached temperatures

of 150 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit. Mr. Truss’s report cited to publications that indicated

human skin begins to feel pain at 111 degrees Fahrenheit, with burn injuries occurring at

118 degrees Fahrenheit, and human tissue being instantly destroyed at 162 degrees

Fahrenheit.

Mr. Truss opined that the Socks were defectively designed and unreasonable

dangerous because they failed to include any temperature feedback or regulation device

that would have prevented the Socks from reaching harmful and dangerous

temperatures. Mr. Truss provided the following conclusions in his report:

e Mr. Floyd Scott’s reported use of the electric heated socks was

substantially consistent with the product manual that was supplied

with the socks.

e Global Vasion was aware of the potential hazard of skin burns at high

temperature with the use of their electric heated socks, prior to this

incident.

e A temperature feedback device could have been designed into the

Global Vasion electric heated socks that would help to reduce the risk

of the hazard of skin burns.

e The Global Vasion electric heated socks contained no feedback or

regulation device to sense the temperature of the socks. Without a

feedback or regulation device, sock temperatures can reach harmful

levels in a matter of minutes.

e The Global Vasion electric heated socks that were distributed by

Amazon contained a design defect in that during normal, foreseeable

usage, sock temperatures can reach hazardous levels and cause skin

burns.

Dr. Eric Peters, a forensic pathologist and former medical examiner, conducted a

review of Toby’s medical records. Dr. Peters opined that the temperatures reached by

the heating element of the Socks, between 153 degrees and 177 degrees Fahrenheit, far

exceeded the thresholds of what would cause burns, and was unreasonably dangerous

and unsafe. Dr. Peters also opined that the thermal injury caused by the Socks directly

caused or contributed to Toby’s death. He explained that sepsis is not an infection, but

rather the body’s response to an infection. Thus, Toby’s burn injury from the Socks

resulted in multiple infections, sepsis, acute kidney injury, and the exacerbation of

congestive heart failure secondary to sepsis. Dr. Peters also opined that Toby’s diabetic

neuropathy did not preclude Toby from feeling pain from the thermal burns, although it

contributed to the initial sensitivity/insensitivity to the Socks’ temperature. Dr. Peters

specifically cited Toby’s complaints of aching and throbbing pain at the wound cite, and

reference to “unbelievable” pain. Therefore, Dr. Peters concluded that “[w]ithout the

burns from the Global Vasion heated socks … Mr. Scott would almost certainly have lived

longer and would not have suffered such a painful and premature death.”

Dr. Anthony Andre, a board-certified Professional Ergonomist and human factors

expert, reported that the Socks were defective and unreasonable dangerous because of

their ability to reach unreasonably dangerous temperatures, in addition to their failure to

provide any warning advising consumers of the dangerously high temperatures or that

the Socks should not be used by people with poor blood circulation, insensitivity to heat,

diabetes, neuropathy, or other similar conditions. Dr. Andre surveyed other electrical

heated sock manufacturers and found numerous products with warnings, precautions

and contraindications expressing warning that those electric heated socks should not be

used by diabetics or people with insensitivity to heat. Contrary to these warnings, the

product page for the Socks worn by Toby affirmatively stated that they were “good for

blood circulation” and for “chronically cold feet.” Dr. Andre also opined critically that

the default setting on the Socks when turned on was the high heat setting. Dr. Andre

provided the following conclusions related to Global Vasion:

e The Global Vasion Electric Heated socks were not safely designed.

e The Global Vasion Electric Heated socks were not properly

contraindicated.

e The Global Vasion Electric Heated socks were not properly warned.

e Mr. Scott acted in a reasonable and normal manner and used the

product correctly and per the instructions. In fact, he turned the socks

off and removed the batteries after only 3 hours of use.

e Global Vasion was aware of certain hazards/risks associated with use

of the product and failed to mitigate these risks.

e Global Vasion failed to protect its customers from the hazards/risks

associated with use of their product.

e Had Global Vasion designed the product to prevent injury and protect

the user, this injury would not have happened.

e Had Global Vasion listed the proper contraindications on the Amazon

product page, on the product packaging, and in the instructions, this

injury would not have happened.

In addition to these expert reports, Plaintiff also provided detailed evidence of

Defendant’s knowledge of the inherently dangerous temperatures reached by the Socks,

and its failures to take any action to remove the Product from the market, remedy or

address the defects, or warn consumers. Kristina Elliott, a risk manager, and corporate

representative of Amazon.Com, testified that prior to Ms. Anderson’s purchase of the

Socks for Toby, Amazon had informed Defendant of other instances where customers

reported suffering burn injuries from the Socks, including reports from multiple

customers that sustained burns from the same model of Socks purchased by Ms.

Anderson for Toby. Indeed, prior to Ms. Anderson’s purchase of the Socks, Global

Vasion had been sued in New York for alleged injuries caused by same model of electric

heated socks worn by Toby.

Ms. Elliott further testified that Amazon’s Product Safety Team contacted

Defendant and requested that they take various steps to address burns caused by their

Product, and that Defendant acknowledged to Amazon that they knew their Socks

caused burn injuries, and stated they would place a “caution card” into the package. The

“caution card” was to read, in part:

CAUTION: IMPROPER USE WILL INJURE THE FOOT . . . Please turn off

the heating or change to lowest heating setting after ten minutes using of

highest heating setting otherwise it will burn your skin if using it in highest

setting all the time. … [N]ot for people with weak sense of heat, especially

for ages up 70 and under 15. … Special notice: For the sake of safety, we

highly recommend medium or lowest setting.

This “caution card” was not contained in the package or on the Socks used by Toby.

Defendant also indicated that it would “redesign the socks, reduce the temperature of the

highest setting, and ship the new design socks to warehouse.” This was never done.

Discussion

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s

claims occurred within the Southern District of Illinois.

Because Defendant is in default, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations as true,

thereby leaving no question as to liability. See Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe &

Concrete Prod., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983) (While allegations relating to

liability of a defendant in default are taken as true, allegations regarding damages

suffered are usually not.). Thus, the Court now determines the amount to award Plaintiff

in both compensatory and punitive damages.

As for Plaintiff’s compensatory damages, testimony was presented during the

damages hearing by Plaintiff Sandra Scott, Toby’s spouse of over 20 years. Ms. Scott

testified extensively of the physical and emotional pain Toby endured in the five months

following the burn prior to his death. This testimony is further supported by the medical

records and the opinions of Dr. Eric Peter. Ms. Scott also testified about how drastically

her life was impacted following Toby’s injury and death. Specifically, she detailed Toby’s

close and loving relationship with herself and his other family members, including Ms.

Scott’s children and grandchildren. Ms. Scott further testified about her ongoing mental

health treatment for depression following Toby’s death.

The Court found Plaintiff’s testimony regarding Toby’s injuries and death

credible, and supported by the record. Aside from the severe burn and significant

physical injuries suffered by Toby, Toby also suffered severe fatigue, social withdrawal,

and exhibited significant decline in his cognitive ability and mental behavior during the

five-month period following his burn injury, until his death. Here, there is no equation

to quantify the monetary value to adequately represent Plaintiff’s loss. However, based

on the totality of records, evidence, and testimony submitted and reviewed by the Court,

the Court determines that Plaintiff should receive $6,5000,000.00 in compensatory

damages, itemized as follows:

I. Economic Damages:

a. Medical Expenses:

Washington County Hospital $7,905.43

SSM Good Samaritan Mt. Vernon $30,396.00

Missouri Baptist $126,973.09

SSM St. Mary’s $48,072.53

Doehring’s Pharmacy $4,022.06

Washington County Ambulance $3,417.00

$220,786.11

b. Funeral and Burial Expenses:

Styninger Funeral Homes $5,631.00

Headstone $2,316.25

$7,947.25

II. Non-Economic Damages:

a. Loss of Consortium/Society $2,000,000.00

b. Pain and Suffering (Survival Act) $500,000.00

c. Loss of Normal Life (Survival Act) $500,000.00

d. Disability experienced (Survival Act) $500,000.00

e. Disfigurement (Survival Act) $500,000.00

f. Shortened life expectancy (Survival Act) $500,000.00

g. Emotional Distress $2,000,000.00

$6,500,000.00

Total Compensatory Damages: $6,728,733.36

Plaintiff is further entitled to prejudgment interest on all damages, excluding

punitive damages, sanctions, attorneys’ fees, and costs, accruing from the effective date

of the amendatory Act (July 1, 2021) through entry of an award at the rate of 6% per

annum. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann 5/2-1303(c). Prejudgment interest on the

compensatory damages award of $6,728,733.36, through the date of the November 28,

2023 hearing, totals $972,301.97.

In addition to compensatory damages, Plaintiff also seeks an award against

Defendant for punitive damages. As the Court found an award of compensatory

damages proper, it will consider whether an award of punitive damages must also be

given. Although awarding punitive damages is generally disfavored and not allowed for

a finding of merely ordinary negligence, such award is appropriate when the defendant

is found to have acted with “malice or an evil motive or … with a reckless indifference

toward the rights of others.” Parks v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 937 (7th Cir.

2005). The purpose of a punitive damages award is to dispense a pecuniary punishment

to the liable defendant and to deter future conduct of a similar nature. See Farfaras v.

Citizens Bank & Tr. of Chicago, 433 F.3d 558, 567 (7th Cir. 2006).

Unquestionably, an award of punitive damages is appropriate in this case. The

evidence in the record reveals that its Product caused severe injuries and lacked adequate

warnings, yet Defendant continues to advertise and promote the Product as being good

for people with poor blood circulation and chronically cold feet, both of which are

medical conditions common among individuals with peripheral neuropathy, like Toby,

who can be seriously injured by the Socks’ dangerously high temperatures. This finding

is supported by the testimony of Amazon’s corporate representative, which reveals that

Global Vasion was not only informed about safety concerns and injuries resulting from

the Socks, but that Global Vasion affirmatively represented it would redesign the Product

and/or supply additional warnings for the Product, yet failed to do so. This knowledge

alone signifies reckless indifference towards people with medical conditions who were

not only targeted consumers for the Socks, but had heightened susceptibility to suffering

severe injuries from the use of the Socks, further reflecting the egregiousness, malicious

intent, and severity of Global Vasion’s actions. Further, it is no surprise that Plaintiff and

Toby’s relatives experienced their own emotional distress from watching Toby’s

significant decline and distress following what was supposed to be a thoughtful gift to

help treat Toby’s preexisting medical conditions. Simply, Global Vasion’s indifference to

the significant pain and suffering its Product was causing to individuals like Toby, all to

turn a profit, is cruel.

Not only does the Court feel Defendant should be punished for its actions, but it

is imperative to deter future conduct of a similar nature, and particularly Defendant’s

blatant attempt to avoid all responsibility for the harm caused by its Product. The Court

finds it repugnant that Defendant would avail itself to this country’s stream of commerce

and then refuse to appear and take any responsibility for the harm its Product caused.

As the record reveals, Defendant initially appeared in this case, before requesting its

attorneys to withdraw from the litigation (Docs. 35, 41 60). Once Defendant’s attorneys

withdrew, Defendant never appeared in the case again. It further dissolved itself as a

California corporation shortly after the filing of Plaintiff’s lawsuit, effectively

disappearing from the United States (Doc. 67-2).

Plaintiff offered credible evidence of Global Vasion’s United States based sales

figures, revealing that Global Vasion received almost $5 million in sales for its Socks from

December 2014 through March 2021. Plaintiff also credibly showed that Global Vasion

continues to maintain a website and still sells its Socks with the same representations and

with no warnings. Accordingly, Defendant’s actions in exploiting the United States

consumer base by continuing to sell its dangerous Product, without taking any

responsibility for the subsequent harm caused by that Product, is repugnant and worthy

of an award of punitive damages. The Court therefore finds Plaintiff should receive an

award of $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

Conclusion

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(B)(2), a judgment of default shall be entered against

Defendant Global Vasion, Inc. for its liability to Plaintiff in the amount of $6,728,733.36 in

compensatory damages, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 6% per annum, in the

amount of $972,301.97, and $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages, for a total judgment

amount of $9,701,035.33.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and to close this

case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2023 UY WV i

DAVIDW.DUGAN

United States District Judge

13