North Carolina Appeals Court Bars Exploding Battery Claims

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has affirmed summary judgment in favor of a retailer and distributor accused of selling a lithium-ion battery that allegedly exploded in a consumer’s pocket, concluding that the claims are barred by the state’s sealed container defense.

In a published opinion, a three-judge panel determined that Stephen C. Weaver failed to produce evidence showing that the defendants—AMV Holdings LLC, MVRB2 LLC, and Medusa Distribution—had a duty or reasonable opportunity to inspect the battery in a manner that would have revealed the alleged defect. The ruling reinforces statutory protections available to downstream sellers under North Carolina’s Product Liability Act.

Weaver had filed two separate lawsuits—one against the retail store operators and another against the distributor—which were later consolidated. He alleged that the lithium-ion battery, purchased for use in a vaping device, exploded in his pocket, causing severe and permanent burn injuries.

The Sealed Container Defense Under North Carolina Law

At the center of the appeal was North Carolina’s sealed container defense, an affirmative defense that shields sellers from liability when they act merely as conduits for products manufactured by others. Under the statute, a seller may avoid liability if it received the product in a sealed condition from a reputable manufacturer and lacked a reasonable opportunity to inspect the product in a way that would have revealed the defect.

Although the parties disputed whether the battery packaging constituted a “sealed container,” the appellate panel focused its analysis on the statutory requirement of a reasonable inspection opportunity. The court emphasized that the viability of the defense did not turn solely on packaging, but rather on whether the defendants could realistically have detected the alleged defect before sale.

The panel concluded that the evidence demonstrated no such opportunity existed.

Expert Testimony and the Nature of the Defect

A key factor in the court’s analysis was the testimony of Weaver’s own expert. According to the opinion, the expert acknowledged that the battery defect was internal and could only be identified through advanced diagnostic measures, including CT scanning and specialized analysis.

The record contained no evidence that the retailer or distributor possessed such equipment or that industry standards required them to conduct that level of testing. The court found that expecting a retail seller to perform sophisticated internal diagnostics on individual lithium-ion batteries would exceed the statutory framework governing product liability for non-manufacturing sellers.

Because the alleged defect was not externally observable and could not have been discovered through reasonable visual inspection, the panel determined that the defendants satisfied the sealed container defense’s requirements.

The decision underscores how expert testimony can shape the outcome of product liability cases, particularly when it establishes the technical infeasibility of defect detection at the retail level.

Jurisdictional and Counterfeit Arguments Rejected

Weaver advanced several additional arguments in an effort to defeat the sealed container defense. He contended that the defense should not apply if North Carolina courts lack jurisdiction over the original manufacturer. However, the appellate court noted that the manufacturer of the battery remained unidentified.

The burden, the court explained, rested on Weaver to demonstrate that an exception to the defense applied. The fact that Medusa Distribution obtained the batteries through a Chinese distributor was deemed insufficient to establish that the original manufacturer would not be subject to jurisdiction in North Carolina.

Weaver also argued that the batteries were counterfeit Samsung products, asserting that a counterfeit manufacturer could not be considered “reputable” under the statute. The panel rejected this argument as speculative, again emphasizing that the identity of the manufacturer was unknown and therefore unsupported by record evidence.

Additionally, Weaver claimed that the retailer was more than a mere conduit because a salesperson recommended a vape device with a replaceable battery despite alleged risks of explosion. The court concluded that recommending or persuading a customer to purchase a product does not, by itself, transform a seller into a manufacturer or negate the sealed container defense.

Claims of failure to warn and misrepresentation of authenticity similarly failed. The panel reasoned that such allegations could not overcome the central issue: the defect was internal and undetectable by the sellers through reasonable inspection methods.

Broader Implications for Product Liability Litigation

The ruling provides a significant clarification of how North Carolina courts interpret the “reasonable opportunity to inspect” requirement. By centering its analysis on the technical feasibility of defect detection, the court reinforced statutory protections designed to shield retailers and distributors from liability for hidden manufacturing defects.

For plaintiffs, the decision highlights the evidentiary burden associated with challenging the sealed container defense. Demonstrating that a seller had both access to and responsibility for advanced diagnostic tools may be difficult in cases involving sophisticated consumer products such as lithium-ion batteries.

From a risk management perspective, the case illustrates the intersection of product liability law and emerging consumer technologies. Lithium-ion batteries are widely used in vaping devices and other portable electronics, and their failure mechanisms often involve internal chemical or structural issues not visible to sellers or end users.

In a statement following the ruling, counsel for Weaver indicated plans to seek further review. “We believe that the decision was erroneous and anticipate seeking review by the North Carolina Supreme Court,” said Stuart M. Paynter of The Paynter Law Firm PLLC.

Whether the state’s highest court will revisit the scope of the sealed container defense remains to be seen. For now, the appellate decision reinforces the statutory framework limiting liability for non-manufacturing sellers absent proof of inspection capability, direct involvement in production, or other recognized exceptions.

Case Details

Case Name: Weaver v. AMV Holdings LLC et al.
Court Name: (North Carolina Court of Appeals)
Case Number: COA25-268
Plaintiff Attorney(s): Dowling PLLC; Wilson Lackey Rohr & Hall PC; The Paynter Law Firm PLLC
Defense Attorney(s): Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP; The Duggan Law Firm PC