PITTSBURGH – A battery maker charges that a Pennsylvania state court has no personal jurisdiction over it, in an action brought against it by a Western Pennsylvania man who says he suffered severe burns after a lithium ion battery for his vaping device exploded in his pants pocket.
Glenn Armstrong of Kittanning first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 20 versus Vape Lab, Vape Laboratory and Walter Wright (doing business as “Vape Lab”) of Kittanning, Lithicore, LLC and Lithicore Tech of Houston, Texas, Demand Vape, LLC of Buffalo, N.Y. and John Does 1-3.
“On April 2, 2019, Glenn Armstrong acquired several 18650-style lithium ion batteries which had been purchased from Vape Lab, including a battery identified on its wrapping as a Lithicore 18650 3000mAh 20 A continuous and 35 A pulse battery,” the suit stated.
“The subject battery was a Samsung 30 Q 3000mAh 15 A battery which Defendants rewrapped and sold as Lithicore 18650 3000mAh 20 A continuous and 35 A pulse battery. 7 29. Vape Lab, Lithicore, Demand Vape, LLC and John Does (1-3) designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold the subject battery.”
On April 2, 2019, Armstrong acquired a vaping device known as a mod (Geek Vape Aegis 200W) which had been purchased from Vape Lab. Vape Lab, Demand Vape, LLC and John Does 1-3 designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold the subject mod. On April 2, 2019, Armstrong acquired a lithium ion battery charger (XTAR VC4 4-bay) which had been purchased from Vape Lab.
“Defendants marketed and represented that the subject battery was suitable for and intended to be used with the subject mod and vaping applications, generally. Defendants marketed and represented that the subject battery charger was suitable for and intended to be used with the subject battery and vaping applications, generally,” per the suit.
“18650-style lithium ion batteries are unreasonably dangerous and not safe for use in vaping applications because of their volatility and propensity to burn or explode. On April 2, 2019, as Armstrong was walking, the subject battery exploded in his front-left pants pocket.”
As a result, Armstrong suffered severe leg burns requiring grafting procedures, severe hand burns requiring grafting procedures and other injuries.
UPDATE
Lithicore filed preliminary objections related to personal jurisdiction and the court’s alleged lack thereof over it in this matter on Jan. 8, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent from Daimler AG v. Bauman and Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California.
“Defendant Lithicore is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Texas. It therefore cannot fairly be said to be ‘at home’ in Pennsylvania, and therefore it is not subject to general jurisdiction in this Commonwealth,” the objections stated.
“Defendant Lithicore lacks the requisite substantial, systematic and continuous contacts with Pennsylvania to satisfy specific jurisdiction. Its only contact with Pennsylvania upon which to predicate specific jurisdiction involves the mere shipping of products to Vape Labs in Pennsylvania on a limited number of occasions.”
The company argued that Armstrong’s counsel cannot demonstrate that its contacts with Pennsylvania relative to the subject battery products were “sufficiently ‘continuous and systematic’ to purposely avail itself to this forum.”
“Since its inception in 2017, defendant Lithicore sold products to just one customer in Pennsylvania – Vape Lab. Prior to April 2019, defendant Lithicore sent only a dozen orders of batteries to Vape Lab via UPS shipments,” the objections stated.
“This falls short of substantial, systematic and continuous contact with Pennsylvania to satisfy specific jurisdiction. Such limited contacts cannot survive constitutional review under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Lithicore.”
For multiple counts of negligence and strict product liability, the plaintiff is seeking in excess of $50,000 in compensatory damages, delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, interest and allowable costs of suit and brings this action to recover same, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by David L. Kwass and David J. Langsam of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by James A. Salemme of Tucker Arensberg and Joseph V. Lesinski of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, both in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-010948
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com