When you have a baby, family wellness becomes all-important, especially for the little one, but if you’ve bought him a ‘Nap Nanny Recliner’ to snuggle up in, his wellbeing could be at serious risk.
According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Nap Nappy Recliner is defective in design, warnings, and instructions, and poses the wellness risks of injury and even death to babies. Over 90 babies have fallen out of the recliner and injured themselves and 5 deaths have been reported.
In July 2010, the first generation Nap Nappy Recliner was responsible for 22 reports of babies hanging or falling out over the side even though most of those used the harness, and there was one product-related death. Therefore, the CPSC and Baby Matters, LLC recalled the product and issued customers with a voucher to purchase the generation two model, with improved instructions and warnings. Since then, the CPSC has received reports of 70 more babies who have nearly fallen out of the recliner, four infants dying in the generation two model and a fifth death relating to the Chill model.
The baby recliners that are considered dangerous are the Nap Nanny (R) Generations One and Two, and the Chill (TM) model infant recliners. Between 2009 and 2012, Five thousand Nap Nanny Generation One and 50,000 Generation Two models were sold, and one hundred thousand Chill Models have been sold since January 2011. Though the manufacturer has not recalled the products, the first and second generation models have been discontinued and Amazon.com, Buy Buy Baby, Diapers.com, and Toys R Us/Babies R Us have recalled all of the porducts voluntarily.
In December 2012, the CPSP filed a complaint against the manufacturer Baby Matters LLC, in order to make the firm notify the public of the defects and offer a refund. This was following discussions with company representatives which did not result in a voluntary recall to address the issue. Commissioner Nancy A. Nord issued a statement on the 5th December 2012, saying ‘My heart goes out to the parents and families of children who are injured or lose their lives in incidents associated with consumer products.’ However, Nord did admit that ‘not every incident that occurs in the presence of a product was necessarily caused by that product. Properly identifying and addressing a causal link is a key responsibility of the Commission.’
Comments are closed.