Tonka Ride-On Truck Lawsuit Filed Less Than One Week After Huffy Issues Recall Over Fire Risk

Huffy recently recalled more than 23,000 ride-on Tonka trucks, following reports of the toys overheating and catching on fire, which could expose children to a severe risk of burn injuries.

A Huffy class action lawsuit has been filed by two women who claim they never would have purchased the company’s Tonka ride-on trucks for their children and grandchildren if they had known the products were both defective and dangerous, following reports of the toy vehicles overheating and catching on fire.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Turneshia Hartsfield and Robin Domrzalski in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Ohio on April 30, naming Huffy Corporation as the sole defendant.

Ride-on vehicles are toys that are designed for children of various ages to operate as if they are driving themselves. They can be either push-along toys or battery-operated vehicles.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Huffy Tonka ride-on truck recall on April 24, following three reports of vehicles’ battery-operated controllers overheating, potentially leading to fires and risks of children being burned. Although no injuries were reported at the time of the recall, there was one report of a fire consuming a Tonka ride-on truck.

According to the complaint, Domrzalski purchased two of the recalled Tonka trucks for her grandchildren. However, one of these trucks was defective and eventually started smoking, Domrzalski says.

Hartsfield purchased her Tonka ride-on truck from Sam’s Club. However, she too experienced problems with the Tonka truck after purchasing it, she indicates.

Despite announcing the Tonka ride-on truck recall for a total of 23,600 battery-powered vehicles, Huffy is currently only offering a replacement of the defective part and not a full refund, the lawsuit states.

Hartsfield and Domrzalski contend that if they had known of the Tonka truck issues prior to purchasing the vehicles, they would not have purchased them, or they would have paid significantly less.

“The Products are not fit for their intended use by humans as they expose consumers to a fire hazard,” the lawsuit says. “Plaintiffs are further entitled to damages for the injury sustained in being exposed to such danger, damages related to the Defendants’ conduct, and injunctive relief.”

Hartsfield and Domrzalski raise allegations against Huffy of unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, strict liability, failure to warn, design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, and negligence.

They are seeking class action certification of their lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, as well as compensatory, statutory and punitive damages.