Apple has categorically denied responsibility for explosions reportedly occurring with their iPhone 5 products. Several complaints have been filed against the tech giant for ‘overheating and exploding’ iPhones, with a lawsuit first on 19th January in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
On around 22nd February 2016, Kyler Mowery was injured when his iPhone 5 reportedly exploded in his pocket, with the reason for the explosion being allegedly due to a possible defect of the phone/battery.
iPhone 5 Injuries
Kyler complained that Apple failed to design the phone to warn users of the potential explosion of the device. Kyler’s complaint includes: severe burns, internal injuries, nervous system shock, aches, pains, mental anxiety and anguish and other injuries.
Kyler is seeking a maximum $50,000 (£39,000) in compensation.
Complaints rebutted
Complaints made by U.S. citizen Joni Mowery on behalf of her son, Kyler, were countered by Defence attorney, Joseph Blum, who stated that Apple didn’t hold any kind of liability for the iPhone exploding in Kyler’s pocket, and therefore his injuries.
Mr Blum stated:
“The injuries as alleged in plaintiff’s second amended complaint are not the result of any negligent or careless conduct on the part of Apple. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of limitations and/or statute of response.”
After the blanket denial was thrown on Apple’s alleged wrongdoing, Mr Blum added fuel to the fire by stating:
“Plaintiff’s alleged injuries may have been caused by his own failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, and, therefore, plaintiff’s claims may be entirely barred or reduced under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute.”
He went on to defend Apple by saying that if the injuries were sustained in the manner alleged then they were as a result of Kyler not exercising reasonable care.
Strict liability?
Both complainants alleged that Apple had been negligent which therefore amounted to strict liability – liability that doesn’t depend on actual negligence or intent to harm. This means that there’s the assertion that Apple holds responsibility for the exploding iPhones even if they haven’t done anything wrong. In theory, it should be easy to prove i.e. the complainant only needs to prove that the injury has occurred and that the defendant is the responsibility party.
In the U.K. we have strict liability legislation as well, although not so much in terms of product liability compensation claims of this nature.
It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this case is. Anyone who has been affected by an incident of an exploding iPhone in the U.K. should seek advice form our specialist lawyers immediately.