Montanya v. Richmond et al

On January 18, 2022, Nicholas Montanya (“Plaintiff”), represented by Cale Howard Conley of Conley Griggs Partin LLP, filed a product liability lawsuit against Scott Richmond and Samsung SDI Co., LTD (“Defendants”), seeking declaratory relief and damages along with costs, among other relief, for the alleged negligence of Defendants in manufacturing and selling products. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of Georgia with Judges William T. Moore, Jr. and Christopher L. Ray presiding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “This is a product liability action seeking recovery for substantial personal injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff Nicholas Montanya (hereafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), after purchasing a Samsung 18650 lithium ion battery (hereafter referred to as “subject battery”), which was sold and distributed by Defendant Scott Richmond (hereafter referred to as “Defendant Richmond”) and designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold by Defendant Samsung SDI Co., LTD” and “[o]n or around November 2019, Plaintiff purchased the subject battery, along with a flashlight, from Defendant Richmond. Neither the flashlight nor the battery had any accompanying labels or warnings.”

Plaintiff further alleged that, “On or about November 26, 2019, the subject battery exploded while in Plaintiff’s front-right pants pocket. As a result, Plaintiff’s clothing caught fire, causing him to suffer severe injuries to his right lower and right upper extremities, and requiring him to undergo extensive medical treatment and skin grafting totaling more than $150,000.00” and “[a]s a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ collective conduct, Plaintiff incurred significant and painful bodily injuries, physical pain, mental anguish, and diminished enjoyment of life” and “[t]he subject battery possesses a defect that made it unreasonably dangerous for its intended use by foreseeable consumers such as Plaintiff.” 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “All Defendants named herein knew or should have known that the subject battery possessed a defect that poses a serious safety risk to Plaintiff and consumers alike. Nevertheless, the Defendants ignored and/or concealed their knowledge of the subject battery’s defects from the public and continue to generate a substantial profit from the sale of the subject battery” and “[a]s a direct, proximate and legal result of the Defendants’ negligence and wrongful conduct, and the unreasonably dangerous and defective characteristics of the subject battery, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent physical and emotional injuries, including, but not limited to permanent scarring on his right lower extremity. Plaintiff has endured pain and suffering, has suffered economic loss, including loss of earning capacity, and will continue to incur such losses in the future. Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages from Defendants as alleged herein.”

There are four claims of relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim is for alleged negligence, breach of implied warranties under O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-314 &11-2-315 and strict liability. The second claim is for alleged negligence. The third claim is for alleged breach of implied warranties under O.C.G.A. §§ 11-2-314 & 11-2-315. The fourth claim is for alleged punitive damages. 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court for declaratory relief and all damages against Defendants, both economic and non-economic, to compensate Plaintiff for his injuries and suffering sustained because of the use of the Defendants’ product; punitive or exemplary damages; costs to be taxed; attorney’s fees and any other relief the court deems equitable and just.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.