Products Liability Law Reporter

A Texas appellate court held that a state trial court had specific personal jurisdiction over Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., in a products liability case brought by a consumer injured when an 18650 lithium-ion battery exploded.

Samuel Wolbrueck purchased an 18650 lithium-ion battery at a vape shop and used it in his StreamLight flashlight. The battery exploded in Wolbrueck’s pocket, injuring his thigh. He sued Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., alleging claims for negligence, products liability, breach of express and implied warranties, deceptive trade practices, and gross negligence. The plaintiff asserted that the trial court had jurisdiction over Samsung because it designed, manufactured, and placed the battery at issue into the stream of commerce and conducted business in the state of Texas in a continuous and systematic manner.

Samsung filed an amended special appearance and contested jurisdiction on the basis that it had never sold or shipped any 18650 lithium-ion batteries to the vape shop and had never sold or shipped any 18650 lithium-ion batteries for use by individual consumers. The defendant also argued that it had specifically emphasized that its 18650 lithium-ion batteries should not be used on a stand-alone basis outside of a battery pack. The trial court denied Samsung’s special appearance.

Affirming, the court noted that a defendant’s contacts with the forum can give rise to either general or specific jurisdiction and that, if a nonresident defendant’s affiliations with a state are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the forum state, the court has general jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. Specific jurisdiction, the court said, covers defendants less intimately connected with a state.

Here, the court found that Samsung did not dispute that it had purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting limited business in Texas regarding the limited commercial sales of 18650 lithium-ion battery cells. The company had sought a benefit, advantage, or profit from its Texas sales, the court said, as well as the protection of Texas law. Therefore, the court concluded that because Samsung had purposefully availed itself of doing business in Texas regarding the 18650 batteries, the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the company as to the plaintiff’s claims, which are related to Samsung’s contacts with Texas in that the claims are based on a Samsung 18650 battery.

The court added that Texas had a special interest in exercising jurisdiction over those who commit torts in the state. The injury here occurred in Texas, and the plaintiff was a Texas resident at the time of the alleged incident. As such, litigating the plaintiff’s claims in Texas allows for the most efficient resolution of the controversy, and there was no basis for the claim that exercising jurisdiction over Samsung in Texas would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, the court concluded.

Citation: Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. v. Wolbrueck, 2024 WL 3944266 (Tex. App. Aug. 27, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Bret Stanley, Houston.

Comment: In Griffith v. LG Chem Am., Inc., 1 N.W.3d 899 (Neb. 2024), John Griffith II bought two lithium-ion rechargeable batteries at a travel center in Lincoln, Neb. Several months later, when he was at home in Pennsylvania, the batteries exploded in his pocket, injuring him. He and his wife filed suit in Nebraska state court, naming LG Chem, Ltd., the batteries’ South Korean manufacturer and distributor; LG Chem America, Inc., the manufacturer’s American distributor; the travel center’s owners; and the owners of the electronic cigarette kiosk where he purchased the batteries. LG Chem was dismissed from the lawsuit for lack of service. The trial court also determined that the plaintiffs’ negligence claims were untimely under Pennsylvania’s two-year limitations period for personal injury actions and granted summary judgment to the travel center and kiosk owners. The trial court later held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over LG Chem, America, Inc. Affirming, the Nebraska high court concluded that LG Chem America, Inc., lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Nebraska to exercise personal jurisdiction over it, and that the Pennsylvania two-year limitations statute applied to negligence-related claims against the defendant sellers.

See also Crespi v. Vape Zeppy, 2024 WL 1295798 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 27, 2024). Here, Ian Crespi was injured when the vape he was using exploded. He sued multiple defendants, alleging they had been involved in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of the vape or its component parts. The plaintiff later amended his complaint, naming LG Chem, Ltd., as a defendant. The trial court denied LG Chem’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court held that LG Chem was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in New Jersey because the company had placed its allegedly faulty batteries into the New Jersey stream of commerce. An appellate court reversed and remanded.

LG Chem then moved unsuccessfully for a protective order to limit the scope of jurisdictional discovery. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration. Reversing in part, the appellate court found that the plaintiff’s jurisdictional theory was overly broad and that the plaintiff was entitled to discovery only on whether LG Chem purposefully availed itself of some benefit in New Jersey related to the explosion of the vape that injured the plaintiff. The court also held that the plaintiff was not allowed to serve additional discovery demands or request supplemental answers to any other interrogatories.