On April 19th, a federal judge in Washington state dismissed a man's claim for damages against LG, alleging that a lithium-ion battery manufactured by LG Chemicals in his e-cigarette had exploded, causing him permanent injury. He later discovered that LG had never marketed that particular type of battery to consumers in the state.
Cannot prove purposeful jurisdiction
Mary K. Dimke, a district judge in the United States, has stated that while plaintiff Jeffrey Huntington had provided evidence that LG had shipped lithium-ion batteries to Washington state, there is no record to indicate that the Korean company had shipped the specific 18650 batteries in question - the type of battery that Huntington had purchased for his e-cigarette from a vape shop, which is also mentioned in the lawsuit.
Defendant LG Company has stated that it never directly marketed these batteries to consumers in Washington, therefore the court lacks jurisdiction over Huntington's claims against LG Chemical.
To prove the court has specific personal jurisdiction over him regarding his claims of defective batteries, Huntington must demonstrate that LG "purposely availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in Washington.
The judge stated that "even if LG Chemical knew that its batteries were being sold to consumers through e-cigarette and e-cigarette retailers, the third-party sale of 18650 batteries in e-cigarette stores does not constitute LG Chemical's intentional use.
The judge in the case cited the recent decision of the Ninth Circuit Court in Yamashita v. LG Chem Ltd. et al, a case which dismissed the lawsuit of a man from Hawaii who claimed injury from 18650 batteries.
In a ruling, the district court dismissed Matt Yamashita's lawsuit against LG, finding that while the company did indeed have a presence in the state, Yamashita's allegations did not indicate that these connections resulted in his injury.
LG plagued with ongoing lawsuits.
LG is facing multiple lawsuits related to its lithium-ion batteries and is questioning jurisdiction in some cases. One of these cases is currently pending in the Supreme Court of Texas.
In the case, Texas Supreme Court Justice Brett Busby stated during a hearing in March that there is currently no clear answer as to whether a company must face lawsuits if the consumer is not the intended end user of the product.
The judge continued, "We will have a clear answer as to whether or not manufacturers of components are subject to personal jurisdiction.
2FIRSTS previously reported on this incident in which LG Chem America and LG Chem argued that the Texas court lacked jurisdiction. This was because these companies did not sell individual batteries in Texas nor did they make direct sales to customers in the state.
According to Legal Newsline, a US legal news website, as of October 2022, LG Chem has faced at least 44 similar lawsuits nationwide in the United States. Throughout these lawsuits, LG Chem has maintained the same defense, arguing that the 18650 battery was never intended for use in electronic cigarettes or other inhalation devices.
Related Reading:
Electronic manufacturer LG faces 44 related lawsuits due to e-cigarette battery explosions.
Reference:
LG Chem has been cleared of liability in a lawsuit involving an exploding vape battery.
Disclaimer
This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.
Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.
The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.
This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.
Copyright Notice
This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.
No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.
For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.
AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice
Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.
Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.
