A Nevada Supreme Court decision involving an exploding vape battery, Franceschi v. LG Chem, Ltd., did not decide whether the battery's manufacturer was at fault. Instead, it was dismissed on a narrower legal question of personal jurisdiction, and that distinction matters enormously for anyone considering a product liability claim after a battery injury. Hunter Davidson, a Boyd School of Law graduate who has argued directly before the Nevada Supreme Court, understands how jurisdictional rulings like this one shape strategy long before a case ever reaches a jury. Here's what the decision actually says and what it means going forward.
What Happened in Franceschi v. LG Chem?
Roberto Franceschi purchased standalone, unpackaged 18650 lithium-ion battery cells from a vape shop in Nevada without receiving any warnings or instructions on their use.
While Franceschi was sitting on his couch at home, one of two 18650 cells in his front pocket caught fire and exploded, causing second- and third-degree burns to his leg, hand, and forearm. Franceschi sued LG Chem, the South Korean manufacturer, and its American subsidiary, alleging product liability.
The defendants argued that Nevada courts lacked personal jurisdiction over them because LG Chem sells 18650 cells only as industrial components built into finished products, such as power tools, not for standalone consumer sale.
The company had reportedly taken several steps to keep individual cells out of the consumer market, including:
- Prohibiting the removal of 18650 cells from finished battery packs
- Sending cease-and-desist letters to retailers and vape shops around the country, including in Nevada
- Posting warnings on its website discouraging the individualized sale and use of the cells
The Nevada Supreme Court agreed that Franceschi's injury arose from a separate, unauthorized "stream of commerce," meaning LG Chem never targeted the Nevada market for standalone battery sales, and affirmed dismissal of the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court did not rule on whether the battery itself was defective or unreasonably dangerous.
Why Do Lithium-Ion Batteries Explode?
Lithium-ion battery cells like the 18650 can enter a failure state called thermal runaway, in which internal overheating triggers a chain reaction that releases the battery's stored energy all at once, often resulting in a fire or explosion.
This is especially dangerous with standalone cells that lack the protective circuitry built into a finished device. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has warned that exposed metal terminals on unprotected 18650 cells can short-circuit against keys or loose change in a pocket, triggering thermal runaway.
Common causes include:
- A short circuit from an exposed terminal contacting a metal object
- Physical damage to the battery casing from drops or pressure
- Overcharging or using an incompatible charger
- Manufacturing defects that go undetected before sale
The FDA has separately published guidance warning that vape batteries can catch fire or explode and recommending against carrying loose batteries alongside metal objects.
Who Is Liable When a Vape or E-Cigarette Battery Explodes in Nevada?
Several parties can potentially be held liable, depending on how the battery reached the injured person:
- The local vape shop or retailer that sold a standalone battery cell without proper packaging or warnings
- A regional distributor that supplied unprotected cells for individual sale
- The battery's manufacturer, if the manufacturer's own conduct connects it to the Nevada market for that specific product
Franceschi illustrates why the manufacturer isn't always the most viable defendant. A Nevada-based retailer or distributor that actually placed the product into Nevada's consumer market is typically much easier to bring into a Nevada courtroom than an overseas manufacturer whose sales were limited to a different, authorized channel.
What Do You Need to Prove in a Nevada Product Liability Claim?
Nevada recognizes strict products liability, a doctrine the Nevada Supreme Court adopted in Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski. Under this doctrine, an injured person does not need to prove the manufacturer or seller was negligent. Instead, the claim generally requires showing:
- A defect existed in the product
- That defect was present when the product left the defendant's control
- The defect caused the injury
Nevada courts have limited the available defenses in a strict products liability claim primarily to assumption of the risk and product misuse, rather than ordinary comparative negligence. A defendant also cannot always escape liability simply by including a warning label if the underlying product remained unreasonably dangerous despite that warning.
Can You Sue the Manufacturer, Distributor, or Retailer After a Battery Injury?
Yes, and Franceschi is a useful lesson in why identifying the right defendant and the right forum to sue them in matters as much as proving the product was defective. A claim against an overseas manufacturer can be dismissed before it ever reaches the merits if that manufacturer's contacts with Nevada don't connect to the specific product that caused the injury.
A well-built case often starts closer to home, with the retailer or distributor who actually placed the dangerous product into a customer's hands, while still preserving claims against upstream manufacturers where jurisdiction can be established.
Get the Right Team Behind a Product Liability Claim
Battery explosion injuries can mean serious burns, scarring, and long recovery times, and building the right case requires understanding both the underlying defect and the jurisdictional rules that determine who can actually be sued in Nevada. Jamie Cogburn brings nearly two decades of experience and membership in the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum to these cases. If a vape or e-cigarette battery has left you burned, Cogburn Davidson Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyers can help identify every viable defendant and pursue the claim in the right court. Contact us today to book your case evaluation.
Disclaimer: The information on this page is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Sources