By Nicole Siino

 

Are the makers of smartphones really that…well…smart? Samsung recalled 2.5 million Galaxy Note 7’s after discovering a defect in the lithium-ion batteries. The defect could result in the cellphones catching fire or exploding. Samsung will replace customers phones but getting a replacement phone could take up to two weeks. Problems with Samsung batteries began to emerge on the Internet. Consumers posted pictures and videos of their melted and charred Samsung phones. Most stories sound the same, the phone was charging when it burst into flames. The Company stated that thirty-five Note 7 battery incidents have already been registered. While Samsung warns customers about potential safety issue, they are not the only ones.

 

The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) strongly advised passengers to refrain from using, charging, and stowing Galaxy Note 7 phones on domestic flights. Other countries, such as Australia and Singapore, have forbid airline passengers from using or charging Galaxy Note 7’s at all. In South Korea, a woman’s phone caught fire and, allegedly, chemical smoked filled the room. In the United States, a man went to put the Note 7 on his waist after charging it and it caught fire. There have been many close calls with the Galaxy Note 7 and, fortunately for Samsung, no lawsuits are connected to that specific cellphone model. Unfortunately for Samsung, a product liability lawsuit has been filed against them for a Galaxy S7 exploding in a man’s pocket and causing second and third degree burns.

 

Daniel Ramirez bought his Galaxy S7 at a Best Buy in California in March 2016. On the morning of May 30, 2016, Ramirez put his phone in his front pocket while he began working. He heard a strange whistling noise and realized that smoke was coming from his pocket. As Ramirez went to reach into his pocket, the phone exploded and caused second and third degree burns to his right hand, groin, legs, and lower back. The burns required skin graft surgery and he will need extensive physical therapy.

 

Ramirez filed suit and alleged four causes of action: (1) strict product liability against Samsung; (2) negligence against Samsung; (3) breach of implied warranty against Samsung; and (4) Samsung’s violation of the New Jersey’s Fraud Act.

 

Product liability law governs the manufacturing, distributing, supplying, and selling of products that are for public use. The manufacturer is liable for the defective product, even if they were not negligent while making the product under strict liability law. In addition to product liability, breach of warranty, which includes express and implied warranties, further make a manufacturer liable for the products they produce. These laws were put in place to protect consumers. So this brings me back to my original question. Are smartphone makers really that smart? Samsung delayed the release of the new Galaxy Note 7 due to exploding batteries. Samsung knew about the defective batteries and still moved forward with their cellphone launch. They recalled the Galaxy Note 7’s but not the Galaxy S7’s even though a major and very public lawsuit is underway. It seems as though the company is more concerned with making a profit than protecting its customers. Samsung has a duty to protect their customers. The company warns customers about the Note 7 but has, thus far, failed to address the lawsuit and what they’re going to do to prevent another lawsuit like this in the future. Could this mean more lawsuits are on Samsung’s horizon? I think so.

 

Samsung is a global corporation with millions of customers. They should being doing everything to protect their customers and the integrity of their company.

 

Student Bio: Nicole is a staff member on the Journal of High Technology Law. She is second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School. She holds a B.A. in History from Roger Williams University

 

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/business/samsung-galaxy-note-battery.html?ref=technology&_r=0

 

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.