TobaccoReporter logo

Tag: Samsung

  • Samsung SDI Avoids Liability in Vape Battery Explosion Case

    Samsung SDI Avoids Liability in Vape Battery Explosion Case

    Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. has been cleared of liability in a high-profile lawsuit over a vape battery explosion that severely injured a teenager, after the Seventh Circuit Court ruled the company had no direct ties to the Indiana vape market. In a unanimous 3–0 decision, the court upheld the dismissal of the case filed by B.D., a minor, who suffered third-degree burns and required skin grafts after a loose 18650 lithium-ion battery exploded in his pocket.

    The battery, manufactured by Samsung SDI, had been purchased from a local vape shop by B.D.’s stepfather. The court determined that Samsung SDI did not purposefully sell or market its batteries for standalone consumer vape use, and thus could not be held liable under Indiana jurisdiction. The company produces batteries for integration into finished products like laptops and power tools, not for resale as individual units.

    The ruling highlights the fine line between manufacturer liability and third-party misuse in the growing aftermarket battery trade, particularly as injuries linked to unregulated vape components continue to rise.

  • Samsung Back on $10.9M Hook for Vape Battery Explosion

    Samsung Back on $10.9M Hook for Vape Battery Explosion

    Samsung Electronics America Inc. must pay $10.9 million to a Georgia man who said he was seriously injured when the company’s battery inside an e-cigarette device in his pants pocket exploded, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled Monday (June 23).

    Jordan Brewer sued Samsung in July 2020, and a county judge held Samsung liable by default in September 2020 after the company failed to respond to Brewer’s complaint. In December 2020, Samsung asked the court to set aside the default judgment, but the court said, “Samsung’s action in pursuing its company protocol in response to similar lawsuits as ‘a failed legal strategy’ that was ‘willful and deliberate and done with indifference to the correct legal process or else was gross negligence.’”

    In 2022, however, Samsung filed a motion with a new judge, who set aside the judgment, citing unclear damages and a lack of a hearing transcript. Brewer appealed, arguing Samsung didn’t meet its burden to justify overturning the judgment.

    This week, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to Brewer and should not have set aside the judgment based on an incomplete record. The court vacated the order, setting aside the judgment and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard. Since that judgment is now vacated, Samsung’s related appeal trying to open the default was ruled premature and dismissed.