ST. LOUIS — A Missouri man filed a lawsuit against Vapor Maven alleging a defective battery caused him severe injuries.
Jasleen Enterprises is doing business as Vapor Maven.
Brian Anthony Pratt filed the product liability lawsuit against the defendant in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southern Division on June 14.
The lawsuit is a product liability action for the personal injuries sustained by Pratt after purchasing and using a defective 18650-battery cell sold by Vapor Maven for his vaping device, according to the suit.
On June 30, 2018, the plaintiff bought the battery, marketed as “IMREN 18650 3200MAH 40A HIGH DRAIN BATTERY (Green)" from Vapor Maven’s store in Poplar Bluff, Mo.
However, an expert analysis revealed that the battery was a rewrapped “Vapor Maven 29E 2700mAh 5.4A” cell, unsuitable and unsafe for vaping, the complaint states.
Pratt claims on July 3, 2019, the battery exploded in his pants pocket, causing severe burn injuries covering about 6% of his body surface.
"At no time prior to the Incident did Plaintiff have facts or information sufficient to apprise...actually or constructively of the dangers posed by the defective condition of the Subject cell," the complaint states. "At no time prior to the Incident did Plaintiff, upon having the facts or information which not only apprised...of the defective condition of the Subject cell, but also imparted knowledge and appreciation of the dangers posed thereby, then proceed to make use of the Subject cell in an unreasonable or unforeseeable manner."
This resulted in significant medical expenses, lost wages, physical pain, mental anguish and diminished enjoyment of life, according to the suit.
Vapor Maven knowingly sold a defective and dangerous battery, the complaint states.
"As labeled, the subject cell was defective because Vapor Maven failed to properly package the subject cell to give reasonable warnings of danger about the product and Defendant failed to give reasonably complete instructions on the proper use of the subject cell when the Defedants by exercising diligence, could have made such warnings or instructions available to Plaintiff," the complaint states.
Pratt claims Vapor Maven knew or should have known that there was a risk of fire or explosion associated with the battery and failed to warn him and others of the risk.
Pratt claims that the defendant failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions of ordinary pressures stress or thermal stress and fatigue stress of the subject cell, leading to the unsafe condition and subsequent injuries.
In his complaint, Pratt alleges that the defendant is liable for distributing a defective product, which was unreasonably dangerous and led to his injuries and that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in selling the defective battery.
The defendant's alleged negligence includes improper design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution and failure to warn about the product’s dangers, according to the suit.
Pratt maintains that the defendant knew or should have known about the risks associated with rewrapped, counterfeit batteries.
Pratt is seeking compensatory damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. He is represented by Matthew J. Devoti and Matthew C. Casey of Casey Devoti & Brockland; and Adam J. Kress of Johnson Becker.
Attorneys declined to comment on the case.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southern Division case number: 1:24-cv-00115