Colorado man sues after explosion
- Thread starter Zapp and Roger
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If they're certified to proper standards, nothing other than them working properly will happen.
I read product manuals these days. I read warning tags. How hard is that? The point I was making is that the same people who don't read manuals are the same people who don't read warning tags. You can't make someone read anything, regardless of how unavoidable it is. All you can do is provide the opportunity. Every day, people chop off their fingers with circular saws that are plastered with warnings. Every day, people fall off the top rungs of ladders while standing on that big red label that says not to stand on the top rung of this ladder.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Probably a combination of things. Probably there is no real solution that's going to 100% prevent these incidents and I would argue that it's a fools errand to try to find one. I do know one thing, if e-cigs weren't so controversial for so many other reasons, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. No other product in history is expected to be idiot proof. I can buy an electric toothbrush or shaver or nose-hair trimmer and put some idiotic battery combination in it. I could plug it in and sit in the bathtub. I could poke myself in the eye, and no one would be all distraught about it. No one would be scrambling to come up with ways to make it .....-proof. I could fill up my airplane with kerosene and nobody would propose regulations demanding that airplanes automatically shut down when they detect kerosene in a tank.
If I were the king judge of the world, as long as the mfg. provided the information necessary to determine what battery, or battery combination, is safe to use in their e-cig, that would be the end of it. I suspect that this man's lawsuit will get nowhere. The prevalence of frivolous lawsuits making it to an actual trial is grossly exaggerated in this country. Judges are not stupid. Anyone can sue for anything. That doesn't mean a trial will ensue. All it means is that some lawyer is willing to file paperwork for a fee. I'd be interested to know if this guy's suit was accepted on a contingency basis. I'd lay odds that it was not, hence the demand for damages PLUS attorney's fees.
If we continue to insist that e-cigs be impervious to abuse by idiots, we will end up with regulations that demand all e-cigs be supplied with sealed, internal proprietary batteries that fit specially keyed charging cords. There will still be explosions, just like the occasional cell phone or laptop battery explodes. But if we insist on manufacturers doing everything humanly possible to make an idiot-proof e-cig, that's what we're going to end up with.
I'd be willing to bet you a zillion dollars that most people do not.
EDITED TO ADD...
Not only that, but I suspect that even the ones that do...
--A good percentage don't believe the warnings are anything but cover-your-... garbage
--A large percentage will forget what the warnings said regardless
Sailorman comes back and once again I find myself and DC2 on the opposite side of the topic. I have 4 kids under 12. For x-mas the oldest 3 each got, among many other things, a Nintendo DSI. Before any of the 3 were powered up they were made to read the quick start guide. Oops, it says to charge it for X many hrs b4 use. Ok, once charged and after reading the quick start guide, they each got to use their new toys for a while. Then comes the questions, how do I get online? How do I do this and that. At this point my wife and I insist that they read the manuals. This is how we choose to raise our children. This is how I was raised. Am I in the minority? When I get something more involved than a hammer, and it comes w a book, or booklet, I'm figuring there is a reason it is there, and I should prob give it a once over. I get the feeling you fellows on the other side of this topic are in the group of fellows who dont need maps or need to ask a local for directions.
I totally agree with you...
But I think if you increase the difficulty of NOT reading them, you increase the number that will accidentally read them.
I like the idea of wrapping a big warning around the APVs and also including a big warning inside the battery compartment.
It doesn't cost much at all, and will increase the odds quite a bit of making someone read it.
And I totally agree with you there too!
If it weren't for the scrutiny this product is already under, this would not be such a big concern at all.
But it is what it is, and it is in all of our best interests to find the best ways to deal with it.
I don't necessarily agree that this case will go nowhere.
And I'm not sure I agree that it is baseless either.
But one thing is for sure if the information we have is true to this point...
This lawsuit will absolutely define the parameters for what an APV manufacturer will have to do going forward.
Doing everything humanly possible is different from doing simple things that could make a big difference.
And greatly (we can hope) reduce their liability and keep them from going out of business and losing their home in the process.
Not to mention bringing the rest of us down with them.
I do NOT agree with the idea of proprietary batteries, for selfish reasons.
But I would love to go as far as we can without impinging on personal liberties.
Last edited:
That's a good thread you started. Kudos to you.
My response to your original post wasn't even so much about your remarks about this particular case. Frankly, I have my own doubts about the merit of this case. Yours just happened to be the first of many that brought up the McDonalds coffee case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. Having recently learned the real details about that case, and the way the facts were distorted and misrepresented in an orchestrated propaganda campaign to advance tort reform, at the expense of all our rights, I felt compelled to set the record straight. The documentary I mentioned infuriated me, as it did to nearly everyone I know who saw it. To have made that woman the avatar for a problem that doesn't even exist, for no other reason than to insulate corporations from the consequences of their own greed and negligence, is unconscionable. That's why I responded the way I did.
Well, obviously yes, I think you are in the minority.
And I'm still willing to bet a zillion dollars.
And I will add that I think you guys are freaks of nature.
Last edited:
Thank you, and yes I did get the theme of your response as it was very well stated. My apology was to the entire community for the remark I made, not to you specifically. It was one of those "What the hell was I thinking?" moments when I reread my first post in the thread, and I just wanted to make it clear that it wasn't one of my best or clear headed moments.
I don't think that's unreasonable. I've bought products with a big red insert in the package. A red paper sleeve with a warning about the battery is easy and economical enough. That's probably what I would do if I made PVs. I'm not arguing that warnings or instructions are not important. My view is that as long as they're clear and accessible and not buried in fine print somewhere, the manufacturer has met his responsibility. Extreme measures designed to protect him from the consequences of not heeding those instructions are where I draw the line and this is where I differ from Roly. I don't think it's the manufacturers duty to design his device to be inherently safe, without regard to what the user does or doesn't do.....
I like the idea of wrapping a big warning around the APVs and also including a big warning inside the battery compartment.
It doesn't cost much at all, and will increase the odds of making someone read it quite a bit.
Again, the best way, IMO, is education, not the mandatory imposition of standards to make something inherently safe. When you attempt that, there is no end to it and you end up doing everything humanly possible, not everything reasonable.
Maybe, maybe not. I really should withhold judgement on that one. I find it interesting that, apparently, this is not a contingency case. Contingency cases almost never delineate a demand for attorney's fees. It is also for only $75K, which sounds to me like more of a nuisance suit in search of a quick settlement. The defendants are not a couple small-time operators, particularly the battery company. In the world of civil lawsuits, $75K is pocket change. If this case was strong, we'd be talking a couple hundred grand and the lawyers would likely be working on contingency.
Ehhh... I dunno. It could just as likely recede into obscurity. This isn't a groundbreaking situation. The defendants could settle for $25K each and send the plaintiff home and their insurance companies wouldn't bat an eyelash. It might alert PV makers to be sure their specifications are clear, but that's about it. What parameters is it going to provide for battery manufacturers? Will they have to put a warning on their primary cells that they shouldn't be used in e-cigs? Will Ratshack employees hereafter be required to know what they're talking about? I have my doubts.
I agree, but I haven't seen any evidence that Puresmoker didn't do enough to reasonably protect themselves against liability. Certainly, I see no evidence that the battery company was negligent. Again, I will reserve judgement, but from what I have seen so far, this has all the earmarks of a nuisance suit. I predict that it'll either get settled quietly out of court, or it'll go nowhere. In the real world, the insurance companies, assuming Puresmoker has insurance, are going to have as much influence as anyone else. They may well decide to cough up $20K or so each and the guy will go away happy. I don't see this as a groundbreaking or precedent setting case at all.
The reference to $75k in the complaint is just standard verbiage to show that they meet the jurisdictional requirements, that is, you have to claim at least $75k in damages in order to file a civil lawsuit in federal district courts. The plaintiffs are suing for "economic and non-economic damages for past, present and future medical care and treatment, caretaking expenses, lost wages, pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, anxiety, depression, loss of enjoyment of life, property damages for fire damage and loss of use of his residence together with prejudgment interest, costs, attorney fees and any other awards this Court deems equitable and just," plus "loss of affection, society, companionship, aid and comfort of Phillip Hahn [and] loss of household services performed by Phillip Hahn" as well as treble damages, none of which have been determined at this point but are likely to be substantial if he indeed lost his eyesight and job as has been reported.
M
Martö
Guest
Sailorman, Thanks for the mention of "Hot Coffee". I was a news junkie when that happened but never heard the whole story. I just watched some You Tube clips and I will definately find a copy. Thanks again.
And I'm betting they have a 80/20 chance of getting at least a lucrative settlement.
And a good chance of getting a lot of the other things you mention.
Not that I agree, but as I said, this case will be the benchmark.
And all APV manufacturers will be put on notice as to what they might expect.
This judgment could all but eliminate the APV market in the worst case scenario.
Or it could mean nothing.
We'll just have to see.
And in the meantime, if I manufactured APVs, I would go the extra mile to ensure my ... is covered.
Losing my house is not something I would want to get hit with for a few extra bucks made from what I assume is a side job.
Thanks. Yes, it is possible that primary cells were bought - and then charged and put in the device. We know this is one way to achieve a blowup as we already have a fully-documented event where this happened.
To me this is just so sad. Would a warning label on the tube mod about never using non rechargeable batteries saved this mans suffering and lawsuits? I think it would have, as at least he would have been warned. If he decided to buy the wrong batteries after having a warning taped to his APV, then it would have been his total mistake, but to not be warned about battery safety at all is really sad in this case. I can't imagine how awful it is to have an explosion in your face. Gives me shudders! Please vendors put a warning wrap on the tube APV's about batteries, this will help warn every user. People are just too non educated about what batteries to use. bnrk
edit: I also looked at the Puresmoker webpage, when I click on manuals nothing shows up? Are they not available? It sounds like they don't send one, you have to download it. I see no warnings about use of proper batteries anywhere, no warning about not using non rechargeables.
edit: I also looked at the Puresmoker webpage, when I click on manuals nothing shows up? Are they not available? It sounds like they don't send one, you have to download it. I see no warnings about use of proper batteries anywhere, no warning about not using non rechargeables.
Last edited:
I guess it depends on what you mean by lucrative and how much your eyesight is worth to you. Would you trade not being able to see for the rest of your life for, say, a million dollars? Another issue is whether or not the plaintiffs will even be able to collect on any judgment against Puresmoker if it doesn't carry liability insurance on its mods.
Manuals and link to battery info is available in PS web site, but ya need to know where to look....
The Prodigy V3.1
The Prodigy V3.1
yeah, I had...
same language, different sense of humour...
Dave, your Double Barrell Silver Bullet review is still one of the funniest things on the internet ever. I wish I could link it here buuuuuut
It addition to educating folks about battery safety how about power safety. Stacking 2 small cells to get 6 or 7 volts then slapping a low resistance atty or carto on it is 'pushing the envelope' even for 'good' cells and downright dangerous for less than good cells. Some 16340, RCR123A cells may have a high enough C rating to theoretically handle the current but stacked battery, LR vaping puts you 'outside the bell curve' for battery reliability.
Driving your APV hard may be exciting,but expect lower reliability
Driving your APV hard may be exciting,but expect lower reliability
Dave, your Double Barrell Silver Bullet review is still one of the funniest things on the internet ever. I wish I could link it here buuuuuut
Ah, yes... there could be the odd issue with that, I suppose. I've served my sentence for one or two of those that I linked to on here - no wish to do more!!!
But while I'm here...
Something flickered in my brain a wee while earlier, and the comment immediately above about stacking cells to get 7 volts and bunging a low res atty on there brought to mind something I'd noticed a while back during conversations about the Kick's max output, during the beta phase. Over here in Blighty, most folks were happy with 10 watts. Over there, in the US, loads of folks wanted more... So I did a bit of delving about, as you do, and it seemed to me that there's a taste for hotter (in temperature terms) vapour in the US than we Brits go for. Which might just go some way towards explaining why, thus far, Britain has not seen a catastrophic failure incident.
The other thing that has always eluded me is why so few folks on either side of the pond actually understand the notion of watts at the coil. I often hear that "6v with a 3v atty is the way to go" when at 3.6 volts, with a 1.5 ohm atty, you're actually running hotter.
I need to get my head round all of this - the laws of physics are inescapable, and I'm beginning to think we need to educate in more than just which batteries to use - we may well have to look at how we refer to all sorts of kit to make it more easily understood. I mean, who on earth buys light bulbs by resistance? Nobody - we buy by watts - surely atties are the same?
- Status
Similar threads
