Queens Judge Green-Lights Claims Over Exploding E-Cig Battery
New York Supreme Court Judge Robert J. McDonald ruled that Madvapes Holdings, Vape Easy and LG Chem would have to face claims that they were negligent and failed to warn plaintiff Katrina Williams about the allegedly defective lithium-ion battery.
April 05, 2019 at 06:43 PM
3 minute read
A Queens County judge on Friday refused to dismiss three companies from a products liability suit stemming from an e-cigarette battery that exploded and caught fire in a woman's pocket.
New York Supreme Court Judge Robert J. McDonald ruled that Madvapes Holdings, Vape Easy and LG Chem would have to face claims that they were negligent and failed to warn plaintiff Katrina Williams about the allegedly defective lithium-ion battery, which she bought from Vape Easy to use in her vape smoking equipment. The battery later exploded in Williams' pocket, causing her serious injury, court documents said.
In the lawsuit, Williams' attorneys alleged that the battery was only intended to be used in power tools and said that their client never received instructions on how to carry and store the product.
According to court filings, distributor Madvapes received the batteries from the distributor, LG, initially unpacking them and then shipping them in individual boxes to Vape Easy and other retailers. The company said that it did not know the batteries were intended only to be used in power tools, though there were alleged instances of battery malfunctions involving the company.
LG, meanwhile, acknowledged that there were no warning printed on the boxes in which they were shipped. All three companies moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
Under New York law, firms can be subject to strict liability in cases where there is a mistake in manufacturing, an improper design or insufficient warning for the use of a product.
McDonald's ruling found that important questions remained in the case about whether the firms had misused the product and whether it was clear the battery was not intended for personal use. Testimony from LG's expert witness, likewise, did not address the danger of a malfunction when the battery is transported in a person's pocket, McDonald said.
“Even if the product had been used [by Williams] in a manner unintended by the manufacturer, whether such use was reasonably foreseeable is also a question for the jury,” he wrote in a five-page order denying the defendants' motions.
McDonald did rule that Vape Easy could be eligible for common-law indemnification against Madvapes and LG, should Williams prevail on her claims against the retailer.
An attorney for Williams was not immediately available to comment on Friday.
Attorneys for Madvapes and LG did not return calls Friday afternoon seeking comment, and an attorney for Vape Easy declined to comment, saying he had not yet reviewed the ruling.
Williams is represented by Marc E. Freund, Thomas J. Moverman and Carmine Joseph Goncalves of Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman.
Vape Easy is represented by David Sheridan Conklin of Ahmuty, Demers & McManus.
Madvapes is represented by Jeannine Marie Davanzo of Gallo Vitucci & Klar and Alana J. Szemer of Faust, Goetz, Schenker & Blee.
LG is represented by Steven Thomas Corbin, Peter T. Shapiro, Nicholas Philip Kane Hurzeler, Rebekah Misun and Jesse Daniel Rodgers of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith.
The case is captioned Williams v. Madvapes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSamsung Faces a Crop of Class Suits Over Data Breach, but Prospects for Big Payout Are Uncertain
5 minute readEx-Prosecutors Weigh Strengths, Possible Defenses in Trump Fraud Civil Suit
Peloton's NYC HQ Doesn't Make It Subject to Consumers' False Ad Claims Under State's Business Law, Judge Rules
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250