Earlier this year it came to light that a number of individuals had sustained serious burns, linked to the use and possible fault of their Thermomix machines. A number of consumers, as well as customer advocate CHOICE, have spoken of these incidents and called for government investigation.

To make matters worse, at least one woman has come forward alleging intimidation from Thermomix staff after complaining about her faulty machine, which resulted in her second degree burns. The Perth mother sustained burns to her chest, arms and stomach after her machine unexpectedly burst open and it’s burning hot contents were splattered across her upper body.

The machine in question had been recalled in late 2014, following claims that in rare circumstances food or liquid may splash out when switching from high-speed to ‘lid open’.

It was claimed that replacement of the seal would eliminate the potential risk, although it seems for many that this has not been the case. In the instance described above, the injured woman had already had her seal replaced prior to the accident.

Earlier in the year many called for Thermomix to introduce a full recall of the TM31 model and continued to warn other users of the potential danger. In the wider scope of those affected, a dedicated Facebook page has even been created, ‘Thermomix unhappy customers’.

Recently, CHOICE published a detailed investigation into the numerous issues surrounding the Thermomix TM31 – including reports of burn injuries, bullying of complainants and the refusal to pay refunds. Of the 94 reports that were made to CHOICE during their investigation, 53 people had complained to Thermomix and only 5 were happy with the resolution or quality of the customer service provided in response – that’s less than 11% of injured or unhappy consumers.

Additional to these complaints, many potential Thermomix clients believe they were also mislead when looking to purchase their first machine. Individuals who were wary about the current model claim that when they enquired about the possibility of a new model (with intention to wait for this one), they were told there was no new model arriving.

However, in actual fact a new model was released, in some cases, only a few months later. In these cases, the individuals believe the sales consultants knew there was a new model to be released and denied this in order to make the sale. 

The overall reaction, or lack thereof, from the company itself has only made matters worse, with many consumers stating they were intimidated or bullied by Thermomix staff, in a bid to silence the issue. An alarming number also saw no response whatsoever – including consumers who had suffered burn injuries.

The CHOICE mass safety incident report was supplied to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) aiming to solicit a clear answer about the safety of the TM31 device. Within this, CHOICE requested that the ACCC issue a safety warning notice about the TM31 and conduct an investigation to determine if reasonable use and reasonable misuse of the device may cause injury.

Recently, the ACCC confirmed that it is indeed investigating the case.

One inevitably asks what rights these injured consumers have.

Leaving aside any issues as they relate to consumer rights regarding the machine, the individuals may have a right to claim compensation for the injuries caused.

Injuries sustained by customers in Queensland, may give rise to an entitlement to compensation in accordance with common law principles for the negligence of Thermomix and the injuries caused.

An injured claimant must prove that Thermomix owed a duty of care to the user of the machine, that that duty was breached, and that the breach led to the individual suffering injury, loss and damage.

Given that Thermomix is obviously aware of the problem with the TM31 device, it is likely that claimants would be successful in proving negligence on the part of the company, and would therefore be entitled to be compensated for the injuries sustained.

Each individual set of circumstances would need to be investigated to ensure that a claim would be able to be made out in negligence.

If the claimant is able to prove that Thermomix’s negligence caused the injuries, entitlements to compensation are determined on a case by case basis for each individual based upon the actual injury sustained, the impact that injury causes and the loss that results.

Compensation in Queensland includes for elements such as:

• Pain and Suffering;
• Out of Pocket Expenses;
• Loss of wages;
• Future expenses;
• Care and assistance, or the costs of commercial care; and
• Future loss of wages.

Notwithstanding the outcome of the ACCC investigation, it’s our view that Thermomix and the manufacturer face potential liability to compensate these victims.

Anyone owning the TM31 device should immediately contact Thermomix and return the device for replacement.

Any individual who has sustained injuries as a consequence would be well advised to seek legal advice. There are strict time limits in place in Queensland in respect to injury compensation claims, so urgent actions should be taken.