Lawsuits and design defects in gas cans
It is true that lawsuits have been filed and won against manufacturers of gas cans based on design features, particularly the lack of flame mitigation devices.
One significant design defect cited in these lawsuits is the
absence of a flame arrestor. A flame arrestor, typically a small piece of mesh or a disk with holes, is designed to prevent a flame from entering the gas can by absorbing and dispersing the heat energy, thereby preventing flashback explosions. Despite the existence of this relatively inexpensive safety device, many gas cans lacked them, leading to numerous catastrophic injuries and fatalities.
For example, the
Blitz gas can lawsuits involved claims that the absence of flame arrestors led to explosions and severe burns, according to
SOS Injury Lawyers. Some lawsuits also alleged other defects, such as a
lack of proper warnings and the
absence of spill-proof spouts.
It is important to note that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has recognized the potential for flashback explosions in gas cans and has advocated for the inclusion of flame arrestors. The CPSC noted in 2013 that flammable vapors could exist in gas containers and ignite, causing explosions. As a result, the
Portable Fuel Container Safety Act of 2020 mandated flame mitigation devices in portable fuel containers, which went into effect in July 2023.
While the act of pouring gasoline onto an open flame is inherently dangerous and constitutes misuse of the product, these lawsuits highlight the argument that manufacturers have a responsibility to design products with safety features that mitigate the risks of foreseeable misuse and potential hazards. The success of these lawsuits has pushed for better safety features in gas can designs to prevent serious injuries from occurring,
according to SOS Injury Lawyers.