BOSTON (AP) — On a warm summer day in July 2006, RobinAleo climbed to the top of a 6-foot
inflatable pool slide and slid downhead first. As she neared the bottom, the slide partially collapsed
andAleo slammed her head on the concrete pool deck, causing fatal injuries.Fiveyears later, a jury awarded
Aleo’s family more than $20 million,finding that the slide sold by Toys R Us did not comply with
federalsafety standards for swimming pool slides.Toys R Us will go before the highest court in Massachusetts
on Monday to ask that the award be overturned.Thenational chain argues that the 1976 Consumer Product Safety
Commissionregulation cited by Aleo’s family does not apply to inflatable in-groundpool slides, but only to
rigid pool slides. Toys R Us also says thetrial judge allowed lawyers for Aleo’s family to inflame the jury
byaccusing Toys R Us of importing an "illegal" product when it had reliedon a certification that
the slide met all safety regulations.Aleo,29, of Louisville, Colo., was visiting relatives in Andover when
shewent down a "Banzai" pool slide. Her husband, Michael, and 15-month-olddaughter were watching
as her head hit the pool deck. She suffered abroken neck and died the next day at a Boston hospital.A jury
inSalem Superior Court awarded Aleo’s estate $20.6 million in 2011,including $2.5 million in anticipated
lost income from Aleo’s career inadvertising and marketing, $100,000 for pain and suffering before herdeath
and $18 million in punitive damages. Toys R Us argues that the $18million in punitive damages was
"grossly excessive."Lawyers forAleo’s husband say pool slides have been subject to a federal
safetystandard since 1976. The standard applies to all pool slides, no matterwhat they are made of, said
Benjamin Zimmermann, a Boston attorney whorepresents Michael Aleo.Toys R Us, however, says the standard
wasonly meant to apply to rigid slides, not the flexible, inflatableslides that have become popular in
recent years."Inflatableslides did not exist (when the regulation was put in place)," Toys R
Uslawyers argue in a legal brief filed in its appeal.The companysaid the regulation "established
performance standards that weredesigned for rigid slides and that could not be met by an air-filledslide
made of fabric like the Inflatable Slide."But Aleo’s familysays the regulation applies to all swimming
pool slides "regardless ofthe materials of manufacture or structural characteristics."Theslide had
an instruction manual and small warning label near theclimbing footholds that said the weight limit was 200
pounds, but thesafety standard required that slides should be able to support up to 350pounds. Aleo weighed
148 pounds, according to testimony at the trial.A spokeswoman for Toys R Us said the Wayne, N.J.-based
company has a policy of not commenting on pending litigation.Inits appeal brief, Toys R Us said the trial
judge refused to allowtestimony that Aleo had misused the slide and that some witnesses saidshe had
"jumped" or "dived" off the slide head first.Zimmermann, however, said that witnesses
who testified during the trial said Aleo had slid down the slide.MichaelAleo’s aunt and uncle purchased the
slide from Toys R Us throughAmazon.com. Toys R Us had imported the slides from China, where theywere
manufactured."It was never tested. It carried no required certification that it had been so
tested," Zimmermann said."Underthe federal Consumer Product Safety Commission standards and
theConsumer Product Safety Act, products that come into the country withouta certification that it’s been
tested to its applicable standards, thesale of that kind of product is unlawful," he said.The
commissionannounced in May 2012 that Toys R Us and Wal-Mart stores were recallingthe slides, citing Aleo’s
death and injuries suffered by two otherpeople, including a 24-year-old man from Springfield, Mo., who
became aquadriplegic and a woman from Allentown, Pa., who fractured her neck.TheAleo case has drawn the
attention of the Toy Industry Association Inc.,a trade group whose nearly 600 members account for about 85
percent ofthe annual U.S. domestic toy market. The group filed afriend-of-the-court brief supporting Toys R
Us in its position that theconsumer safety regulation does not apply to inflatable pool slides.Thegroup says
the safety commission never considered applying the rule to"constant air inflatable" slides
because they didn’t exist when the rulewas written in the 1970s."In any event, the safety hazard
thatplaintiff alleged — injury due to the loss of air pressure — was notamong the risks that the Commission
considered," the group argues in itsbrief.The group says applying the regulation to inflatableslides
"goes beyond Congress’s authorization for consumer product safetyrules."Copyright 2013 The
Associated Press.