Exploding mods: the feedback thread

[Mister]

A commercial e cig with a manual battery has no cut off and if the button gets activated or stuck in the on position.....

There's at least one commercial manual e-cig with a cut off, the Vapor Kings at vapor4life. There may be others.

I keep wondering what's the definition of a "mod" for these purposes. My favorite PV is the Janty/Joye Stick. I have no opinion as to whether it is a mod and I suspect than popular opinion on this as a question wouldn't be decisive. It isn't a conventional e-cig which looks like a cigarette and which has a custom integrated battery. OTOH it is a fairly large production run (relative to most mods) device and is produced and sold "commercially" by a company vs. being produced and sold by an individual.

In regard to battery safety for naive users I think the J-Sticks are pretty good but not quite as safe as more conventional e-cigs. They use single (i.e. non stacked) batteries of a relatively (vs. some other mods) low capacity, i.e. 10440's. Some protection circuitry (at least timed cutoff, undercharge, overcharge, charge rate, and incorrect polarity, I don't know if there's more) is onboard in the J-Stick body and does not rely on protection in the battery. But the battery is nonetheless replaceable and users might use incorrect batteries and/or recharge batteries incorrectly externally from the Stick's recharge circuitry.

The above considerations are what led me to use the terminology "battery mods" in my earlier post in this thread. IMO when the battery in a device is user replaceable independently of batteries specifically associated with the rest of the device, the consumer must be at least a bit more educated about battery safety issues. An early part of that education should be showing the consumer how much more they need to learn. A bit more in the case of devices like the J-Stick, vs. the other extreme of a LOT more in the case of devices which use stacked high capacity batteries in a device without onboard protection circuitry.

 

[zapped]

I just ran across this post on a flashlight modding website.The guy was using EIGHT 18650 batteries in there when it blew up on him TK Monster Explosion - CandlePowerForums

In light of all the evidence presented I think we do need to take precautions.I'm wondering if making mods out of metal is all that great of an idea to start with.There has to be some plastic or polymer out there that can offer more protection and less chance of grounding or shorting against the body.And like someone posted earlier its not going to be funny when someone on here loses an eye or even worse.

Im not saying mods should be banned, there are some really smart people here on these forums and if we all put our heads together to come up with safer alternatives then maybe we can avert a tragedy.Its no longer a question of IF its going to happen but WHEN.

 

[rolygate]

@JayBones

This issue is way bigger than a mod that exploded, and goes far deeper than that. If ECF had any real interest in making it's membership safer, they would have had higher standards to begin with, instead of merely reacting to some isolated cases which it believes may cause it to incur liability. Mods and members alike hand out medical advice that should come from a doctor as if they are qualified to do so, but this is not a liability concern. But, someone who has no experience in building electronic items happens to take some advice offered on this site and does themselves harm, then all of the sudden it's a liability issue.

To answer some points from the short extract above, from your well-reasoned comments:

The reason we didn't have "higher standards to begin with" is that the site grew like an explosion, from nowhere, had few staff, and nobody knew what was going to happen either with the site or in the industry. Now we're at a position where the market has stabilised in terms of what's on offer and who represents it, and we have enough staff, so the time is right to organise things correctly. In a new industry or market area or leisure area nobody knows which way things are going to move, so standards can't even be defined never mind enforced. It's time to fix that.

The question of "advice handed out by those unqualified to do so" (to paraphrase) is a universal one - and you might even say the web is founded on it. The volume of misinformation is vast, everywhere you go. Part of the way you might define a high quality web resource is the way they control misinformation and/or provide accurate resources. This is one of our main drives, and although we can't stop people giving their opinions since that is a main driver of community involvement, we hope to gradually introduce more accurate reference materials over time. You should by now have seen the start of this process. And I believe that if you are honest, you will admit that our standards are higher than most.

Your point also raises the question of exactly how to stop people giving out incorrect advice. Would you like to be in charge of that?

It's a double standard for sure.

I take issue with that. We fight hard to get it right here, and the harder we fight the louder the screams of complaint. Maybe you'd like to tell us exactly how to fix whatever it is you see as a problem.

What does it take to be a supplier? Are there checks of business licenses and such? It doesn't seem so, based on the feedback in some threads. Some practices that would never be accepted by anyone buying anything online are accepted as okay on here.

So you didn't notice this is one of the things I'm worried about and trying to do something about, at least on ECF?

If you only wanted Suppliers here who maintained the same sort of standards as legitimate traders in any other consumer electronics area, you would probably be reduced to less than 10 out of the 500-odd suppliers here. The number with business licences or registration of any kind, product liability insurance, product testing regimes, product certifications, local authority approvals or any other measures deemed responsible or possibly even vital by vendors in other markets is exceptionally low in ecigarette manufacture and supply, especially at the retail end and in small-scale custom manufacture.

There is a universal problem here and it's the backyard manufacturing, cottage industry mentality of a large number of suppliers, who can't seem to see that if they supply a product that if used wrongly becomes a pipebomb and therefore needs some built-in safeguards; or that if they supply refill liquid for the public to inhale when they have zero idea of what it contains or the medical implications; and almost none have any insurance or licensing of any kind; then there are going to be some surprises around the corner for all of us.

Somebody needs to comment on this situation, and it's ECF.

If I, as a consumer would have had to deal with some of the wait times and utter disregard for customer service that I have witnessed on some threads here, I would be screaming for the better business bureau. Yet ECF doesn't step in on this, even though it's more than likely one of their "approved suppliers."

ECF does step in whenever asked to. There are two sides to any story though, and some situations turn out to be unreasonable behaviour by customers. In other cases as soon as we ask a Supplier what the story is, the situation is magically resolved. Other times, where the issue is clearly in the customer's favor and no resolution is seen, we take action against the Supplier, including ejecting them from ECF. We just need a formal complaint and a copy of the payment receipt that everyone gets when ordering online, and if no satisfaction is received after 21 days then we certainly do get involved. I apologise if you don't see what is happening behind the scenes but there is a lot going on.

I'm sorry if I misinterpret the general tone of your post but it seems to me that you are complaining about the same things I'm trying to clean up.

 

[leannebug]

I don't have the time to read through all the debate (just yet) but wanted to note a few things, before I forgot.

Suggestions:

1. Have multiple disclaimers (both when joining, and in the mod/vendor sections)
2. Call them "suppliers" instead of "approved suppliers". They can still go through the same process, but simply changing the name may change your liability
3. Don't sell advertising space to a modding company (or whatever it's called). You can still have them listed in suppliers, have the forum space, but if you don't advertise them, that may reduce your liability.

For those questioning the 'whys' of ECFs concern:
: I don't know if this was addressed or not (as I have not had my coffee yet and read through all 11 pages) and correct me if I'm wrong; many forums, this one included, are not allowed to do/say/promote things that are dangerous/illegeal/etc for the precise reason that it does make them liable. So it should make perfect sense to wonder if to include this (dangerous and/or unprotected mods) in their list of no-no's.

Also, in light of all the FDA bans and regulations, I would be very worried about anything that has the potential to blow up in my face (in more ways than one)

 

[markarich159]

. The wonderful thing about the legal system is if you bring an action against someone and you lose then you can be held liable for the attorney fees of the person you are suing.

This is not true in the USA. "Loser pays" is not how the US civil legal system works. I also have a part ownership in a local credit bureau/medical billing/ collection agency. We've been sued, not excessively, but a few times for totally baseless, frivolous, supposed FDCPA actions(in some cases by persons we did not ever have communication with, had no idea who they were & were not in our database - once by a inmate in State Penitentiary who was randomly suing every collection agency he could find in a 5 State radius). In every case, although none of the cases ever made it to a settlement or the litigation phase, our company was out the cash. Firstly, the auto retainer we pay to our collection attorney, then, above that, any charge we had to pay said attorney to respond to the baseless , frivolous claim. You can't recoup fees 1st of all from an entity that is suing you "in pauperis"(or as a pauper), 2ndly you can't recoup fees unless you countersue(which costs you money up-front that you cannot legally add to the fees your suing for). The American legal system would would certainly be , as you say "wonderful" if "loser pays everyone's fees" was the standard. This would stop , about 80% of all frivolous suits from being filed in the 1st place.

 

[BuzzKill]

If you are a business making $ by selling " Mod's " then you are bound by your local and state regulations , If you choose to not have liability ins. and someone sues you they go right after your personal belongings and cash/house . That is the risk you take not being insured.

Selling a known ( now it is known ) potentially unsafe device your liability goes WAY UP , so does the risk . This is still up to the seller to be responsible for , If ECF decides that in order to promote/have a forum on ECF you must meet certain criteria they can do that , it's their right to do so ( what the legal ramifications are I do not know , not a lawyer ! )

Myself I would not sell a product without liability ins. on it , to much risk, But that is me .

I would also not sell a product that has potential for harm to my customers without some attempt at safety precautions , ( has not happened in this industry ! ) so far there are a lot of hand held battery holders with NO PROTECTION at all . ( not all devices ) .

The seller/Mfg is liable for the products that they sell.

It has not happened but it will eventually, someone will be seriously hurt by one of these unprotected devices and the whole thing will Blow up in our faces ( no pun intended ! )

I have yet to see any test results from any Mfg. that shows their product to be safe or even protected. If you can point me to one I would like to see it.

 

[hifistud]

A commercial e cig with a manual battery has no cut off and if the button gets activated or stuck in the on position......



Kris

That is incorrect. SLB manuals have cutoffs, as does the DSE905.

 

[raqball]

That is incorrect. SLB manuals have cutoffs, as does the DSE905.

No it's not really incorrect... I am not going to waste space listing all the commercial made devices with manual buttons that do not have cut offs.... But you get the point...

Kris

 

[lotus14]

Not only that, but what is frequently NOT reported is the fact that McDonald's had been continuously warned that they had their coffee made too hot - it was MUCH hotter than other fast food restaurants. The woman had severe burns that would have been less if McDonald's had kept their coffee temps reasonable and safe.

But fears of "frivilous" lawsuits is what causes kneejerk reactions like this one at ECF - however, it was not a frivilous lawsuit - just reported as one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelbee6478
Roly you say ECF does not want to be a governing body? IMO you are placing yourself in this position by making a standard. I know this that if you start approving mods you place yourself in the position to be sued.

Agreed - as soon as you start setting a standrard, you place yourself in a position of authority and open yourself to litigation regarding the mods that you DO "approve."

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightgeoduck
I really think the warning is already out.. and no liability should be held.... If it wasn't for the forum... no one would have heard about the incident and got educated on the matter

A valid point and completely misunderstood by Roly.

This forum does better to allow discussion of ALL mods and let the warnings get out, rather than censor the discussions. Because of ECF, people have been warned about the dangers now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj2
You can put out all the warnings you want. You can title the posts in BIG RED LETTERS and sticky them at the beginning of every post but that doesn’t mean all will read.

Roly said that they cannot "disclaim liability" yet there is so far no evidence that ECF actually HAS any liability in the event of an accident.

Most discussion forums have disclaimers that state that the opinions expressed by the members are not those of the site's owners, management or employees, is meant for entertainment purposes only and the site's owners, management and employees are not liable for what is discussed or transactions.

So long as the site's owner, management and employees do not weigh in and give an "approval" or "disapproval" or any opinons of any kind on the mods, they have no liability then. Period. So better to have a rule for your staff to stay out of giving opinions about mods or other risky behavior and you will remove ECF from the equation.

Another recommendation would be a required "I agree that..." with a list of terms and services (including that the site is for entertainment and ECF is not liable) and the new member has to check a box to agree or they do not get to be a member. Discuss the fact that there are unknowns and dangers and the user is responsible for their own actions.

Finally, you need to change "Approved Vendor" to "Advertising Vendor" or "Paid Advertiser" so as not to suggest that you endorse them or their products.

Those three things would make ECF no more liable for a transaction between a modder and customer than craigslist is for transactions between it's members. If someone hooks up a date on craigslist and gets crabs, there is no way in hell that craigslist could be sued or if they were, it'd be dismissed quickly. I suggest looking to their terms of use for guidance - I'm sure they've paid some big lawyer fees to cover their virtual butts. ;-)

Once you start limiting what can or can't be discussed or advertised, you will be implying that you are making the site a "safe place" for members and keeping them from harm. If they do still get hurt or sick, you have breached that implied contract and will be held liable.

You're better off not setting any precedence and staying out of it, with appropriate warnings & disclaimers.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I have learned a lot from lawyers in my real estate consulting career and learning what is and what is not implied representation, both in selling and running web sites. I recommend determining what would make ECF liable before any kneejerk policy changes.

By censoring and setting standards, you are making an opinion of what is "good" or "safe" and opening up yourselves to even more liability, IMO.

It's a pickle. Good luck with that.

Thank you kristin. You're right on point as usual.

I would also point readers to Cash's post #35.

The day ECF sets up 'standards' or 'approved devices' they open themselves up for liability.

The day ECF starts telling it's members what mods, batteries, etc., they can discuss, ECF becomes the nanny. Might as well join the FDA in their lawsuit with SE/NJOY.

Don't get me wrong - I think safety should be everyone's concern. That's why I choose to vape instead of smoke cigarettes.

Information is what this forum has provided me, and many others, in abundance and I am very grateful for it. Without it I would never have learned a tenth of what I know about vaping. But the day ECF censors that information in some of the ways that are being discussed, I personally will be gone. There are other e-cig forums.

IMO, ECF should do what it can to make 'best practice' information widely available, but never write that information themselves or "approve" a "Safety Board." Vents are a good idea? Maybe so until you get burned by the hot jet of gas.

And drop all use of the word "Approved." This is a forum provided by ECF for discussion, nothing more. Like anything on the web or in print, take everything you read with a grain of salt.

Suppliers are advertisers so call them that. The do not sell on this forum, they advertise here. They sell at their own web sites.

 

[MikeDeason]

If you are an attorney and can state with absolute certainty that ECF can never be seen as a commercial partner with that modder or supplier, that's good. We welcome your input. If however you are not legally qualified, then let's face it - your opinion on this particular aspect of the issue is not of outstanding merit. It's always worth hearing but has no basis in fact.



.

WOW...JUST WOW!

No offence but you are asking people on the internet for LEGAL ADVICE. That's like knowingly buying or supporting a product from an inexperienced, unliscened and uninsured supplier.

I'm a lawyer...ya... a lawyer.

My advice is TURN OFF THE COMPUTER...OPEN THE DOOR...DRIVE TO LAWYER.

You have a great forum and jumped on the craze before anyone else...this place could be a goldmine...unless you take advice from people on the internet.

 

[lairkeeper]

And this is the point. Don't we all know how 'sue happy' people are these days? And does the law care that you were negligent? How about the dumbo who spilled the hot McD coffee on herself then goes on to sue them....and win!

As I'm not a lawyer I cannot say if someone would have a case for suit against ECF but I did want to chime in and say that every time I hear this case trotted out as the basis to illustrate why "we can't allow this anymore" it makes my skin crawl.

Lawsuits are filed all the time with NO basis. But in this case there was plenty to base the suit on. And plenty of justification for the millions she received in putative damages. Juries are not made up of a group of idiots. Juries are made up of people who are given facts (many of which the general public never hears about) and then come to a consensus about what it will take to rectify the situation at hand. In this particular case there had been many, many incidents of people, including children, severely burned (not a red place folks, serious injuries with peeling skin and scars) by McD's coffee which was being kept at a temp much higher than what is considered safe or necessary. Each time McD's plunked out puny (to them, likely a kings ransom to some of us) settlements and kept on with its unsafe business practices. Why? Because the settlements didn't make a dent in their HUGE corp. profits. Just another little cost of "doing business". It went from negligence, to gross negligence to complete and utter disregard for the safety of the public in general! This is why the injured woman was sucessful in her suit and why she received such a large award. Punative damages have NOTHING to do with the amount of damage rendered or with how much the injured party deserves. They are punative! They are designed to punish the offender and therefore must be large enough to "get the attention" of the wrongdoer. How much money would it take to get my attention? About $100. But how much will it take to get McD's attention? I think 12 people have already reviewed the financials of McD and made that decision.

I've been sued. And it had basis and I was liable. When the plaintiff refused to settle for a reasonable amount and instead demanded a ridiculous amount of damages in court the jury came back with a verdict of "no liability" in response. Again, jurors are not idiots. They are YOU and ME!

All that being said, CAN ECF be sued? Oh yeah! I can sue anyone I want in my county for a grand total of $80. Just go down to the local magistrate, grab a blank Summons & Complaint, fill it out and pay the filing fee. Can someone sue ECF and win? With all the disclaimers and considering that ECF doesn't actually sell anything directly I'd be surprised if 12 reasonable people would come to the conclusion that ECF should be responsible. Frankly, unless ECF is owned by a large corporation with huge insurance policies and a fantastic bottom line, I doubt that most personal injury attorney's would bother naming them in a suit. Most personal injury attorneys (in my state at least) work on contingiency fees and therefore head directly for the "deep pockets" (whoever/whatever company is involved that has the largest insurance policy or assets) in order to actually COLLECT the largest settlement. As we all know 33% (standard contingency percentage here) of nothing is nothing.

Again, I'm not an attorney and the above is based on my own layman logic and understanding of the legal system.

With regard to the battery issue. I belive that it is prudent to require that all persons selling mods be required to recommend protected batteries for their mods if they want to "advertise" them here. Not because it protects ECF from suit, but because it will help protect members of the community from injury.

As far as formation of a committee (or anything like it), I wonder if that would actually make ECF more likely to be named as it would suggest to users that a group of "experts from ECF" have deemed something safe and therefore actually establish grounds for suit.

*Disclaimer: The above is in no way intended to be represented at legal advice or counsel. Please seek the expertise of a licensed attorney in your state if you feel that you may need clairfication .

Just my 4 cents (as I typed at least twice as much as I meant to)

 

[5cardstud]

I would suggest each one of them be required to have a circuit protecter on them like the one scottbee suggested. Then like any electrical devices with that kind of problem it couldn't happen. If a circuit shorted it would terminate. Plus these things are pennies to buy. I'm installing them on each one of mine. JMO

 

[MRHTOAD76]

A noob's point of view on all this

I see both sides ,but am I the only one who gets the overwhelming feeling of deja-vu here?

Yes its important to discuss the dangers and make them aware ,but this just seems all over the top. But it seems more like hey look this is a dangerous issue it needs to be addressed lets take advantage of the fear and grab the reins tighter and make sweeping rulings we normally would never consider. (Or be able to get away without causing uproar)

Omg they have WMDs invade and pass a bunch of laws that we would normally never be able to get away with!!

I get that ECF needs to cover its tail and I don't knock that at all ,but c'mon... If you can't take the heat get out the kitchen. Either hire the lawyers , change the TOS, wait and see what happens,or close down its not that hard a decision.

As I said this is just my 2 cents

 

[rolygate]

Thanks everyone for your input.

We will now take some action on this. We don't want to ban mods, or ban certain types of mods, or restrict what can be mentioned on the site, or anything else in that line - but we have to do something. Doing nothing is not an option.

We will try to promote a sensible safety feature set without forcing it on anyone.

We have to post disclaimers but note these may have no validity, since you cannot disclaim liability in some circumstances.

We'll post warnings though, and these will be the main focus of our efforts. Those Suppliers selling mods with no safety features can expect to be inconvenienced by this. It is not a question of user error alone causing the problems, it's a matter of manufacturers needing to protect users from component failures and operator error. The idea of a manufacturer not wanting to include basic safety features is not at all palatable.

We may try to restrict any possible joint liability since this is just common sense.

Those who have commented on legal issues might be reminded that we operate in more than one country, and state or federal law are not the only issues to consider.

This thread is now closed.