Colorado man sues after explosion

[John D in CT]

It was putting out there that an etching stressing battery requirements or whatever would reduce the occurances of this happening ... If you have ever owned a business you would also know that the liability protection with something like this is limited at best ...

Not only that, how many people bought a pack of cigs with a warning label that said these cause lung cancer on it, then how many got cancer, and sued the cigarette companies, and won?

The ultimate in liability protection doesn't come from a sign or a warning label, but from reducing risk. That is what got the cig companies in the end, no matter what they did, they produced a product that causes harm, period.

Well I guess we seem to be on the same page then that it's important to reduce accidents and the risk thereof with warning labels. Where we seem to differ is in whether or not it helps at all from a liability standpoint, and I can't help but think that it does.

There is no "ultimate" protection against anything, but there are simple steps that can be taken to improve safety and reduce liability risk. And even though it was mandated by the federal government, warning labels on cigarettes have probably had the effect of saving the tobacco industry millions or billions of dollars in potential monetary judgments against them.

I think it defies common sense that there is no benefit to warning a consumer about a possible hazard. It is better to have a sign warning of a slippery floor than to just have a slippery floor. Could you never have a slippery floor? Sure, but then you woud always have a dirty floor, or one with a smashed bottle of strawberry jam on it. And I do own a business, so I'm conscious of the importance of reducing my liability risks.

Here's what some manufacturers have done, and could do, to reduce theirs:



"OTHER TYPES OF batteries MAY CAUSE PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGE"



"Use only RCR123A" (Smoktech Woo) (Engraved by me).

Lastly, I do not like proprietary batteries.

ok so we got some idiot ruining ecigs for everyone .... people really tick me off

I think and hope that there's a developing tacit agreement among the participants in this thread to give the guy a break. I myself made a mistake once, though it turned out to be just a fluke. And people can't tick you off without your permission. I still let them do it all too often, but it's nice to know that it's ultimately a choice.

 

[blueeyeddevil]

im not arguing could of been a mistake mabye he should get a break but i found



"Additional Information:
User Guide: Can be found under Prodigy User Guides on the left hand side of our website.
Dimensions (Without Atomizer):
Length: 105.75mm (4.16")
OD (Width): 18.95mm (.745")
Inside Diameter: 16.93mm (.665")
Weight With Batteries: 3.96 ounces
Finish Option: Satin Stainless Steel or Media Blasted Stainless Steel
Atomizer Connection: 510/BUD Adapter
Compatible Connections: 510 Atomizers, 510 Cartomizers, BUD Atomizers & BUD Cartomizers
Battery Type: AW 17670
Battery Quantity: (1) 17670
Voltage Type: Fixed (purely mechanical)
Running Voltage: 3.7v
Amount In Stock: Refer above. This changes daily.
Lead Time: If not on a pre-order, shipping time is between 24-72 hours.
Support/Additional Information: www.Pure-Smokers.com"


here The Prodigy V3.1


all im sayin is radioshack doesnt even sell that battery or one to fit its specs ...

on another note you are correct they should put the battery type in plain sight somewhere just like toys and everything else that takes batteries has .

 

[Shining Wit]

Let me clarify something in my lat post.

One big difference is that PS made the device, and RS didn't make the batteries, they merely sold them.

Still, they were produced specifically for RS by a bigger battery manufacturer.

So there are 3 people you can sue, the battery manufacturer, Radio Shack, or Puresmoker, one of these doesn't have a team of lawyers, Puresmoker is the low hanging fruit here.

Maybe this is one of the reasons that many manufacturers produce batteries as an integral component in a sealed unit?
Litigation has reached the stage where you can sue even if you have done something that most of us would consider 'stupid'. The Judge's (or Court's) decision will be based on whether they consider the defendant/s took reasonable precautions against such an incident occurring. It doesn't matter one iota what we think is right or wrong, sensible or stupid, the Court will decide if the product was safe enough in its design and intended use and if precautions were adequate. They will take expert advice on both the technical and Health & Safety issues, along with taking into account any possible contributory negligence by the complainant.

My guess is that there will be a substantial payout, even if there is contributory negligence.

John

 

[hifistud]

I wonder whether the complainant's lawyers will call the authors of the ECF Mod Safety Specs as "expert witnesses" seeing as how they do seem to have made the case against Puresmoker - it's almost certain that that, and threads on it, will not have escaped their notice.

 

[Str8V8ping]

The radioshack batts he was using seem to be more expensive then good AW batts .What was he thinking.

 

[Rocketman]

The purchase of the mod in this case was in early Nov, 2011.
The 3.1 version was added when?
The new ECF specs/recommendations here came out when?
The prodigy single cell recommendation and stacked cells being removed from the vendor's web site was when?

People using stacked batteries in this mod will stop when?
The technical evaluation of RCR123/16340 cells being performed behind the scenes on ECF will be published when?

Things are different now. What was the attitude toward stacking a pair of 3/3.2 volt UNPROTECTED cells last year?
Those that have commented that the RS cells were alkaline, Nimh, or NiCd haven't tried vaping at 2.5 volts

It is possible that non-rechargeable primary cells were used, but not a pair of 1.2 or 1.6 volt cells.

 

[rolygate]

I think the case (as far as PS is concerned) will hinge on:

1. If suitable warnings were clearly given on the site at the time regarding the batteries to be used with the Icon v3 reportedly involved (the site has been extensively altered now and is not relevant).

2. If suitable warnings were included with the device, for example in the form of a printed sheet with full instructions.

3. If negligence can be shown in the design or construction of the device.

Who knows what the courts will make of it. It's very bad news for us whatever way it turns out. It is also very unfortunate for the person involved who either did not know of the dangers, or took a risk and lost.

The case will be complicated by all sorts of minutiae such as the possibility that the user might even have charged some primary cells and used them, which we know from a previous incident is a way to create an explosive twin battery failure. However I don't think that will alter the basic way it will play out, which will probably depend on the three issues listed above.

Whatever the reasons or the result, it will hurt us. There is also the possibility that these incidents will occur again unless some sort of measures are taken to stop it happening. There is an argument that including clear warnings inserted with the device might help, which I agree with, but in the end it won't stop virtually sealed tubes that can take two batteries in series exploding because that is an inevitable consequence of selling them.

The problem is that they explode right in front of the face. As a result I believe it is absolutely imperative that manufacturers take all possible steps to prevent this happening. I know many people don't agree with me but that's their prerogative.

 

[Petrodus]

The problem is that they explode right in front of the face. As a result I believe it is absolutely imperative that manufacturers take all possible steps to prevent this happening. I know many people don't agree with me but that's their prerogative.

rolygate ... I agree with you

Issues like this will happen again and all the public will hear or remember is
"Another" e-cigarette exploded in someone's face.

If I were in the commercial e-cig business for the "long haul" ...
I wouldn't be selling MODs.

Even the blind can clearly see our movement can easily be
knocked back to the Stone Age...Overnight !!!

I join with you in saying ...
"I know many people don't agree with me but that's their prerogative."

 

[rytzzzy]

Hey I got an idea, let ban cars and anything else that fails, like people. The government is already working on that by not allowing procedures to the elderly because they can be done away with. Lets ban doctors they blow up better yet ban any and all of the government that wants to makes all of us compliant and robotic................ Lets sue someone because of global warming, I am new here but I am not stupid enough to ignore warning and directions on how to use a device. I also know how to read, all vendors put up the disclaimers telling everyone use at own risk. Do we just sit back and say its ok, no, this man did a idiotic thing and he's paying for it. Now he's just helping the daymn government to step in and try to control this also. Just another piece of iron to add to the inviable iron curtain we already have. Oh yeah and to boot this incident has made vendors start butchering all the newer mods with these ugly vent holes.

 

[Sparrots]

I went to Radio Shack (some years ago) and asked if they carried protected batteries and they looked at me like I was the idiot and said there was no such thing. It's like going to a plumbing supply company, asking for a toilet and they sell you the blueprints for an outhouse. They must have a hard time getting good help. The whole thing is sad but more for the mod maker than anyone else.
Rebecca

 

[Petrodus]

My reply was not meant to imply MODs should not be sold but they are a specialty
item that does require more working knowledge than standard mainstream PVs.

We here on the forum can talk about MODs, batteries, stupid people that don't
or won't follow instructions and frivolous law suits and place blames here and there.
HOWEVER, the public at large is not here and many if not most don't even care
that much about e-cig Internet discussion groups.

A MOD enthusiast member posted earlier on this thread that "Greedy" marketers
took MODs out of the specialty circle to market them along with traditional PVs.

So...I'm not against MODs ... There is a place for them in the "specialty" market.

I am all about the success of our movement...Promoting harm reduction and
saving lives. ANYTHING that could knock such a noble cause back to the
Stone Age or Kill the movement is worth discussing.

If stories about exploding e-cigs continue to surface...You can be your best
PV that you'll see the subject showcased on FOX and CNN followed by a
newscaster saying "Well do you think exploding e-cigs that have a history
of putting people in the hospital and could kill... should be banned??? ...
Log on to our Facebook and tell us what you think"

 

[hairball]

After reading through the lawsuit, it's basically saying that the Prodigy injured the man. I'm not a lawyer but I can even blow holes in their claims. Exactly "how" did the mod injure the man? The mod, by itself without batteries, would not injure anyone. It wasn't the mod that injured the man. It was his own actions by not reading the information that puresmoker had on their site. When looking at a mod to purchase, I have yet to come across one that doesn't have a "warning" of some sort. The man failed to acknowledge the warning and installed the wrong batteries. The batteries are the culprit...along with his own ignorance of not reading what they recommended at the time.

Back when I bought my first Prodigy, which was the V3.1, they recommended the Tenergy 3V or the 17670 protected batteries. All warnings were on the page in plain view. Since I was a new vaper at the time, and this being my first big mod purchase, I read those warnings and bought what was recommended. To be honest, I didn't have a clue about a battery but I had enough common sense to do what was recommended. That man would never be able to convince me that he didn't see the warnings! It was his own fault that the accident happened.

If I was a juror and new nothing about an ecig, common sense would tell me that it wasn't the mods fault that it happened.

We live in a country where suing your neighbor for farting wrong seems to be the norm. The man needs to admit that he used the wrong cells.

I would like to see an organization come in and test our hardware for safety and get with vendors on how they can improve their device(s) without the government stepping in and doing it for us.

I would also like to see mods with a warning paper inserted into the battery compartment. Why the compartment? Would make the person have to remove it plus, out of curiosity, a person would open it and read the damn thing. If a person chooses to ignore that paper, then the only thing that can be held accountable, is the owner of the mod.

 

[GAC]

Great, so an idiotic decision by a person too lazy/cheap to buy the correct batteries or even bother to research the consequences that could happen from using incorrect batteries now wants money for their stupidity. I have no sympathy for this person, not only are they screwing with a good vendor they are shining negative light on vaping in general.

I use AW lifepo4 batteries stacked every day with no issues what so ever, I am at least smart enough to check voltages and condition of them before putting them in my pv for the day. All batteries are dangerous, even the one in the back of your phone you put to the side of your head every day.

 

[offset]

im not arguing could of been a mistake mabye he should get a break but i found



"Additional Information:
User Guide: Can be found under Prodigy User Guides on the left hand side of our website.
Dimensions (Without Atomizer):
Length: 105.75mm (4.16")
OD (Width): 18.95mm (.745")
Inside Diameter: 16.93mm (.665")
Weight With Batteries: 3.96 ounces
Finish Option: Satin Stainless Steel or Media Blasted Stainless Steel
Atomizer Connection: 510/BUD Adapter
Compatible Connections: 510 Atomizers, 510 Cartomizers, BUD Atomizers & BUD Cartomizers
Battery Type: AW 17670
Battery Quantity: (1) 17670
Voltage Type: Fixed (purely mechanical)
Running Voltage: 3.7v
Amount In Stock: Refer above. This changes daily.
Lead Time: If not on a pre-order, shipping time is between 24-72 hours.
Support/Additional Information: www.Pure-Smokers.com"


here The Prodigy V3.1


all im sayin is radioshack doesnt even sell that battery or one to fit its specs ...

on another note you are correct they should put the battery type in plain sight somewhere just like toys and everything else that takes batteries has .

Puresmoker has just recently removed information about using the v3 at 6 volts from its site.

In Dec 2011, after the prodigy in this incident was purchased, the specs looked like this

Battery Type: AW 17670 or Tenergy LifePo4 RCR123a
Battery Quantity: (1) 17670 or (2) RCR123a Batteries
Voltage Type: Fixed (purely mechanical)
Running Voltage: 3.7v or 6v

The Prodigy V3.1 -

** woops, that link is actually from 2010. But that's basically what the site looked like up until it was changed around the time of the Florida incident. **

 

[Petrodus]

After reading through the lawsuit ...

For the benefit of those that might have missed
the post pointing to the lawsuit PDF
Here is the link: Click Here

 

[EJH]

Let me clarify something in my lat post.

One big difference is that PS made the device, and RS didn't make the batteries, they merely sold them.

Still, they were produced specifically for RS by a bigger battery manufacturer.

Untrue. Ignition LP, one of the defendants in the lawsuit, is a subsidiary (or similar) of Radio Shack.

 

[DaveP]

We can all make comments about wrong batteries or uninformed users, but there's still the likely possibility that the victim was unfortunate enough to lack understanding about putting two unequally charged batteries in a two cell mod. Not all realize that reverse charging can result from batteries used in that way.

Then, there's the possibility that one out of however many thousand batteries are shipped with metal dust from machining in the electrolyte. This is what was blamed for the burning and exploding laptops of the 90s. It seems that in the process of manufacturing, a certain amount of metal fragments end up floating inside the thick liquid electrolyte and those can migrate to a point where they cause a direct short INSIDE the cell. That's why we have protected cells.

Who knows what he used. I do know that even alkaline cells can create enough heat in a dead short to burn a blister on your hand when you try to pick it up. I had first hand experience with a co-worker who changed the alkaline 9v in his Fluke 87 meter and threw the other battery out of a package of two into his toolcase. When he reached for a tool, he pushed the battery into a box end wrench that shorted the 9v. A couple of minutes later we heard a fizzing noise and saw smoke rising from the battery. He grabbed it and tried to throw it into an empty trash can. In the second or two he held it a large 2nd degree burn formed in his palm that later turned into a huge blister!

Everyone in the office turned around to see who screamed.

 

[BiffRocko]

For completeness, here's the actual lawsuit (PDF) CLICK HERE

That confirms he was using the wrong batteries. From page 2 item 6.

At all times relevant hereto, Ignition, L.P. (herein referred to as “Ignition”) conducted
business in Colorado and was engaged, among other things in the business of designing,
manufacturing, assembling, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling and otherwise
placing in to the stream of commerce the Enercell Lithium CR123 3V 14mAh batteries
(herein referred to as “Enercell Batteries”). One of the products at issue in this action.

Online poker was a billion dollar industry in the US prior to lawsuits by the US government on April 15, 2011. When the government gets you in their sites, we're all peons. Very, very few industries are too big too fail.

I agree that the e-cig industry isn't too big to fail, but I live in the US and still play online poker.

 

[GAC]

Who knows what he used

He used non-protected non-rechargeable enercell lithium 3v batteries, it is stated in the lawsuit pdf.

 

[Foggy]

There is also the possibility that these incidents will occur again unless some sort of measures are taken to stop it happening.

After working in the consumer electronics industry for all of my adult life, I'd change possibility to certainty in your statement. Consumers will do stupid, stupid things even with equipment that is obviously dangerous, (sharp blades, etc.)

There is an argument that including clear warnings inserted with the device might help, which I agree with, but in the end it won't stop virtually sealed tubes that can take two batteries in series exploding because that is an inevitable consequence of selling them.

The problem is that they explode right in front of the face. As a result I believe it is absolutely imperative that manufacturers take all possible steps to prevent this happening. I know many people don't agree with me but that's their prerogative.

It's logical to do so for their own protection, let alone the protection of the industry as a whole. Unfortunately, it may never happen without incidents like this. (This does not mean that I support the lawsuit. I certainly regret the negative spotlight on vaping.)

***

Putting aside any discussion of fault or legalities, (and none of us knows the entire story in this case), it's tragic to hear of such a serious injury. I do want to wish Mr. Hahn a full recovery.