Teeter Hang Ups inversion tables, made by STL International, Inc. of Washington state, have been the subject of at least three product liability lawsuits: two wrongful death actions against the manufacturer and one injury suit against a retailer that displayed the equipment. The cases allege users were trapped upside down, flipped while strapped in, or thrown backward off a store demo unit.
The Oregon Suffocation Death Case
On July 14, 2010, Gary Lee Price of Bend, Oregon, died while using a Teeter Hang Ups EP-850. The Deschutes County Medical Examiner ruled the death an accidental asphyxia.1OregonLive. Federal Lawsuit Claims Bend Man Died on Inversion Table
According to the complaint, Price became stuck in the inverted position and could not return the table upright or free himself. The filing described a “prolonged period” in which he made “desperate effort” to get out before he suffocated.1OregonLive. Federal Lawsuit Claims Bend Man Died on Inversion Table
His estate filed suit in July 2013 in U.S. District Court in Eugene, seeking $1 million. The core allegation was that the EP-850 was “dangerously defective” because the warnings on the machine and in its manual did not adequately alert users to the risk of becoming trapped while inverted.1OregonLive. Federal Lawsuit Claims Bend Man Died on Inversion Table
The Mobley Quadriplegia and Wrongful Death Case
Years earlier, Linda Mobley brought a separate federal case against STL International. Her husband had bought a Teeter Hang Up through the Home Shopping Network to treat back pain. According to the complaint, he was using it as directed, ankles secured in the clamps, when the table flipped and he broke his neck. He was left quadriplegic and later died of his injuries.2Courthouse News Service. Inversion Table Killed Husband, Widow Says
Reported in March 2008, the suit alleged negligence, product liability, and breach of warranty, and sought damages for pain and suffering.2Courthouse News Service. Inversion Table Killed Husband, Widow Says
The Big 5 Store Display Injury Case
A third lawsuit, filed around the same time as the Price case in July 2013, went after a retailer instead of the manufacturer. Donald Walken sued Big 5 Sporting Goods in Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene, Oregon, saying he was hurt while trying an inversion table on display at the store. The table suddenly flipped backward, he alleged, because it lacked a safety chain that would have controlled its rotation, and he suffered back and knee injuries. The complaint sought more than $2 million.3Claims Journal. Oregon Man Files Lawsuit After Trying Inversion Table at Store Big 5 had not publicly responded as of the initial reporting.4Star Tribune. Oregon Man Files Lawsuit After Trying Out Inversion Table at Store
What The Manual Already Warns About
The warnings claim in the Price case has to be read against what the EP-850 owner’s manual actually says. The manual tells users to return upright by shifting weight with arm movements rather than trying to sit up, and it warns that aggressive movements while inverted can cause the table to tip. A tether strap limits the angle of rotation for new users, and adjustable roller hinges control how easily the table rotates.5Teeter. EP-850 Owner’s Manual
The manual also directs users through a “Hear, Feel, See” protocol to confirm the ankle clamp locking pin is fully engaged, warning that failure to do so could cause “serious injury or death.” It tells users not to wear boots or thick-soled shoes that could interfere with the ankle clamps and sets a 300-pound weight limit and a 6-foot-6 height limit.5Teeter. EP-850 Owner’s Manual The Price complaint’s position was that those warnings were still not enough given the entrapment risk.
Does FDA Clearance Block These Lawsuits?
No. Teeter inversion tables are classified by the FDA as Class I medical devices in the nonpowered orthopedic traction category, and in December 2016 the agency cleared the Teeter decompression line through the 510(k) process as “substantially equivalent” to existing marketed devices.6FDA. 510(k) Premarket Notification K162702 But the clearance letter itself states that the FDA does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties, and that clearance does not signify compliance with all applicable federal or state laws.7FDA. 510(k) Summary K162702 FDA registration is not a shield against product liability claims.