Disaster strikes with my new GLV2... pics included..

[kj4lxw]

Safety guidelines

 

[LowThudd]

Well.. did he ask the seller what the appropriate batteries were?

That seems to be the hinging point to me.

Since the seller did not provide the buyer w/ the proper batts that he paid for, it is the sellers ABSOLUTE responsability to make sure that the buyer is informed as to which batts can and cannot be used. It is really a simple legal classifacation of responsability. "Buyer Beware" doesn't cut it w/ electrical devices going BOOM from a mistake the average person is likely to make if the Manufacturer/supplier does not offer a solid explaination of the possibility of danger. Neglegence.

 

[cozzicon]

If something is dangerous to use without a customer vetting process, should it be available to purchase by going through facebook and google? People who have absolutely no clue will buy these mods, having no knowledge of the learning curve.

He did ask questions about the batteries here on ECF:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/125299need-batteries-glv2.html#post1949146

Maybe him asking if he could find them at wal-mart was a clue?

I guess he eventually found some batteries and they weren't working right because he made another post about it and got four replies, none of which pointed out that he needed protected batteries:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/126472-what-best-cr123-battery-glv2.html#post1972145

Doing a search on "GLV2 Batteries" and nothing pops up that points the EFC user to protected batteries. If EFC is the safety net for educating the customer, it failed in this case.

I hate this thread because I think both parties could have done better. So people take sides on it.

The information about protected batteries can be found in official ECF postings made by the people who run the site.

Additionally, he didn't ask in the GLV forum where he had a better chance of getting a useful response. Based on the second question he posted, we now know why the batteries failed- they were allowed to fully discharge thus damaging the cells.

And.. GLV should have the info on the web site.

I still say draw. It's not as if GLV supplied him with unsafe batteries.

 

[Poppa D]

This is more reason to buy protected circuits or rechargeable devices (like an eGo), that do not use various interchangeable batteries. The mechanical device is designed to be ridged in form, therefore the batteries should be included for the users safety. At the very least they should be designed with barriers at the positive terminal, so that a flat negative surface cant make contact.

Think, if this were a child, hmm, not good.

 

[kj4lxw]

Read this one too

(CR123 Explosion during use, firsthand account)

The fumes are extremely toxic!! Serious stuff!

found it, look at post #128 in this link and see the after affects he suffered.

 

[cozzicon]

Since the seller did not provide the buyer w/ the proper batts that he paid for, it is the sellers ABSOLUTE responsability to make sure that the buyer is informed as to which batts can and cannot be used. It is really a simple legal classifacation of responsability. "Buyer Beware" doesn't cut it w/ electrical devices going BOOM from a mistake the average person is likely to make if the Manufacturer/supplier does not offer a solid explaination of the possibility of danger. Neglegence.

I dunno man. Are you an attorney?

I've worked very close to them, and my take on it is that it's a draw.

I think both parties are wrong. In a court of law it would result in no damages awarded to either side.

 

[Mr.Self_Destruct]

If something is dangerous to use without a customer vetting process, should it be available to purchase by going through facebook and google? People who have absolutely no clue will buy these mods, having no knowledge of the learning curve.

He did ask questions about the batteries here on ECF:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/125299need-batteries-glv2.html#post1949146

Maybe him asking if he could find them at wal-mart was a clue?

I guess he eventually found some batteries and they weren't working right because he made another post about it and got four replies, none of which pointed out that he needed protected batteries:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/126472-what-best-cr123-battery-glv2.html#post1972145

Doing a search on "GLV2 Batteries" and nothing pops up that points the EFC user to protected batteries. If EFC is the safety net for educating the customer, it failed in this case.

Either ECF failed or patience. If you looked up those batteries people were recommending or bought the recommended batts, they would've been protected.

just sayin'

I agree with Cozzicon about this being a draw between OP and supplier. I don't know what kind of info GLV gives with their products. It would be great to hear from another GLV owner.

 

[LowThudd]

I hate this thread because I think both parties could have done better. So people take sides on it.

The information about protected batteries can be found in official ECF postings made by the people who run the site.

Additionally, he didn't ask in the GLV forum where he had a better chance of getting a useful response. Based on the second question he posted, we now know why the batteries failed- they were allowed to fully discharge thus damaging the cells.

And.. GLV should have the info on the web site.

I still say draw. It's not as if GLV supplied him with unsafe batteries.

The supplier is not liable because an e-cig forum gives required information? Yea, I can see that going over well in court. How is the ECF an escape from legal liability? No lawyer in his right mind would try that in court.

 

[ShannonS]

BTW, OP I have lawyers in the family(the do property legal work though), and I have had conversations w/ them about legal issues. I can safely say, that unless proper OBVIOUS warnings are given that ONLY a specific type of battery should be used or BOOM, that the seller is guilty of gross neglegance. It is fairly cut and dry from a legal standpoint. I really don't see how anyone can justify the simple problem of exclusion of a basic safety concern. My PV manuals even usually say, do noy use while driving, just as a precaution. But BOOM is another story all together.

Geeze, don't go there! I'm sure this can all get fixed without people getting sued

 

[LowThudd]

I dunno man. Are you an attorney?

I've worked very close to them, and my take on it is that it's a draw.

I think both parties are wrong. In a court of law it would result in no damages awarded to either side.

The burden of safety requirements is the sellers responsability, NOT the buyer. Fairly basic law.

 

[cozzicon]

The supplier is not liable because an e-cig forum gives required information? Yea, I can see that going over well in court. How is the ECF an escape from legal liability? No lawyer in his right mind would try that in court.

Yea... but he had the proper information on batteries that would work- and didn't use it. He asked a question about what the proper battery would be, got information and didn't use it.

Still comes up a draw in my mind.

 

[LowThudd]

Geeze, don't go there! I'm sure this can all get fixed without people getting sued

My point is burden of proof to dispute the idea that the buyer is responsable. If there is a danger in not using a PARTICULAR cr123, then it is the absolute responsability of the seller to provide that information, on the web and with the product. I tried logical explaination, and my points made were ignored. So I chose to point out legal responsability as a way to end the disagreement. Not suggesting he sue, but he should get his money back, or a replacement with the proper batts and proper warning included.

 

[ShannonS]

I hate this thread because I think both parties could have done better. So people take sides on it.

The information about protected batteries can be found in official ECF postings made by the people who run the site.

Additionally, he didn't ask in the GLV forum where he had a better chance of getting a useful response. Based on the second question he posted, we now know why the batteries failed- they were allowed to fully discharge thus damaging the cells.

And.. GLV should have the info on the web site.

I still say draw. It's not as if GLV supplied him with unsafe batteries.

I see both sides too. I don't hate the thread though. I think it is a good thing and will increase awareness of issues we need to confront in a constructive way. I usually take pot shots at the safety police but this time I think the concern is warranted. Oh and now I want a GLV2 mini. They are GORGEOUS.

 

[LowThudd]

Yea... but he had the proper information on batteries that would work- and didn't use it. He asked a question about what the proper battery would be, got information and didn't use it.

Still comes up a draw in my mind.

First off visiting the ECF should never be considered the responsability of the buyer. The ECF strictly points out that they are not responsable for anyone useing/misuseing information obtained here. That is a simple disclaimer that virtually any forum has to have. Second, he did ask and he was not told that he needed protected batts. So, the ECF(unfortunately) failed to relay a simple warning. So therefor the ECF cannot even be considered a reliable deffense for the supplier not providing proper safety info, even if they were in the first place. It is still the burdon of the supplier to provider proper safety info like it will BLOW UP if you use unprotected batts.

 

[Poppa D]

If I were in this situation I might not ever use a flashlight again, for fear of not being an expert.
The OP has a valid beef.

 

[cozzicon]

First off visiting the ECF should never be considered the responsability of the buyer. The ECF strictly points out that they are not responsable for anyone useing/misuseing information obtained here. That is a simple disclaimer that virtually any forum has to have. Second, he did ask and he was not told that he needed protected batts. So, the ECF(unfortunately) failed to relay a simple warning. So therefor the ECF cannot even be considered a reliable deffense for the supplier not providing proper safety info, even if they were in the first place. It is still the burdon of the supplier to provider proper safety info like it will BLOW UP if you use unprotected batts.

However, the batteries that were recommended would nto have caused this problem.

I'm arguing the other side as it would be.

 

[LowThudd]

However, the batteries that were recommended would nto have caused this problem.

I'm arguing the other side as it would be.

Has no bearing on this case. The ECF is not a legitimate part of the suppliers business plan. It actually makes no difference what was discussed on ECF. And a good deffense attourney would never bring it up, because no warning info was given. None. Mentioning a couple specific types the HAPPEN to be protected does not give adequate warning that unprotected batts go BOOM. That is, if an attourney was incompetent enough to bring up an liably protected third party web forum that STILL did not provide the required information. Is the buyer to assume that because a couple of name brands are recomended that ALL aspects of said examples are needed to avoid an explosion? No. The buyer is not responsable for understanding the latest technology involved and required, unless the supplier adiquately provides said information in a way that the average person who has only a basic understanding of batteries can understand. Like DO NOT USE UNPROTECTED BATTS. It is so simple to have avoided this problem from the suppliers standpoint, that he becomes volentarily neglegent by not bothering to provide even a modest safety warning, let alone an important one. I honestly do not understand why this concept is not obvious to you at this point, and we are starting to run in circles. So I will say good evening to you.

And to the OP, good luck, and I hope you are doing OK.

 

[VPDownunder]

I'm lucky in that I have battery knowledge from my RC days, however if I didn't already know about battery chemistry I can easily see myself doing the same thing as the op if no warnings were supplied with the device. The end user can't be held responsible for his ignorance if no effort was made by the seller to educate the end user in the dangers of using non protected batteries and he should assume full responsibility and replace the device or offer a refund imho.

 

[Drozd]

Yea... but he had the proper information on batteries that would work- and didn't use it. He asked a question about what the proper battery would be, got information and didn't use it.

Still comes up a draw in my mind.

you should read back to the begining again....
OP ordered the device with batteries...
the seller shipped the device and charger and NO batteries and NO comunication to the buyer....
buyer emailed Jay and kinda got blown off citing chinese holiday as screwing him...
so the GLV site didnt warn of protected batteries...Jay himself didnt warn in the follow up email to get protected batteries...
the buyer looked at the charger (which only said CR123 batteries) so again no waring of protected...

yeah the seller has the blame on this one..it's their duty to provide that info...

and no where do we absolutely know what caused this failure it very well could have been a problem with the device or a shorted atty...

My point is burden of proof to dispute the idea that the buyer is responsable. If there is a danger in not using a PARTICULAR cr123, then it is the absolute responsability of the seller to provide that information, on the web and with the product. I tried logical explaination, and my points made were ignored. So I chose to point out legal responsability as a way to end the disagreement. Not suggesting he sue, but he should get his money back, or a replacement with the proper batts and proper warning included.

you know I find this topic interesting because people also assume that protected batteries are safe to stack...and there's so much more that goes into that...
how many people know that static electricity or a faulty charger can fry a PCB with no indication to the user?
how many people know that there are several levels of protection in a LiION battery...and just because it says protected doesn't mean it's fully protected (that's why some say IC protection or fully protected vs just saying protected)
how many people still buy and use ultrafire cr123 batteries even though amp draw of most atties at 5V+ (heck even at 3.7V) well exceeds the max drain rating of the batteries causing them to be overstressed and run at full discharge because they want to save a few bucks over good decent batteries?...
personally I think vendors should warn against using anything except 18650 size batteries, the AW LiMN 14500, the AW LiMN 16340, or the AW LiFePo4......but I ain't holding my breath for the day that happens

 

[kevbow]

I'm lucky in that I have battery knowledge from my RC days, however if I didn't already know about battery chemistry I can easily see myself doing the same thing as the op if no warnings were supplied with the device. The end user can't be held responsible for his ignorance if no effort was made by the seller to educate the end user in the dangers of using non protected batteries and he should assume full responsibility and replace the device or offer a refund imho.

I also had previous experience from my RC days so I had an understanding of batteries. I also own a GLV-2 and because I've been vaping and using mods for quite a while now knew what type of batteries to get. I do agree though that Jay should have put a warning to only use protected CR2 batteries. For the record, I use IMR protected 16340 batteries in my GLV.