January 2019

Vape Batteries and E-Cigarette Explosions: Who is responsible for injuries or deaths caused by an “Industry-Wide” problem?

There has been plenty of debate on the health and safety effects of “vaping”, but the most dangerous aspect of electronic cigarettes is likely the potentially explosive lithium-ion batteries used to power them.

Since 2009, there have been over 200 reported incidents of fires and explosions, and at least one death, caused by exploding e-cigarettes in the U.S. As more products enter the market, the number of these explosions will continue to rise, as will the number of injuries and deaths.

If you or a loved one have been injured by an exploding e-cigarette, you may be entitled to compensation from the manufacturer or seller of the device. Our law firm has represented individuals that have suffered injuries from an exploding battery and we know how to pursue compensation.

What is an E-Cigarette?

An “electronic cigarette” refers to several different types of devices within a larger class. These devices come in varying shapes and sizes and are sometimes called e-cigs, personal vaporizers (VPs), mods, electronic nicotine deliver systems (ENDS), and vape pens. They are powered by lithium-ion batteries which produce a heated vapor that looks like smoke.

Risk of Injury Due to Explosion of Lithium-ion Batteries in E-Cigs is Exceedingly Dangerous

In 2016, the U.S. Fire Administration issued a report concluding that lithium-ion batteries should not be used in e-cigarettes due to the inherent risks of injuries due to explosion and fire. In reaching this conclusion, the agency examined 195 reported cases of e-cigarette battery explosions.

"The e-cigarette/lithium-ion battery combination presents a new and unique hazard to consumers. No other consumer product places a battery with a known explosion hazard such as this in close proximity to the human body. It is this intimate contact between the body and the battery that is most responsible for the severity of the injuries that have been seen."

(McKenna, Lawrence. “Electronic Cigarette Fires and Explosions in the United States 2009-2016.” National Fire Data Center, U.S. Fire Administration.)

Who is Responsible if a Vape Pen Explodes?

In Texas, the manufacturer is generally responsible for the safety of its products. Only when the manufacturer is insolvent or beyond the reach of Texas courts can the sellers be held liable. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 82.003 (“Liability of Nonmanufacturing Sellers”).

Because most e-cigarettes and lithium-ion batteries are produced in China, it is often the vape shop or other retailer that sold the defective product who is responsible for the damages. As such, consumers should always purchase from reputable retailers who are more likely to be financially solvent and/or have insurance to cover the damages.

Under Texas law, any party who participated in the design, manufacture, or marketing of a defective product may be held responsible for damages. In the case of e-cigarettes, these products could be considered fundamentally defective because almost every product currently on the market requires the use of a lithium-ion battery, which is known to be potentially deadly.

Many of the risks associated with lithium-ion battery explosions occur due to improper handling of the devices. Because so little information is provided to consumers about proper handling, those responsible for the marketing of the devices may still be liable for any damages as a result of injuries or death.

If you or a loved one has been injured or killed by an exploding e-cigarette, it is important that you consult with a qualified attorney as soon as possible who can give you advice specific to your case. Our team of experienced attorneys is here to help.

What is CBD Oil?

CBD Oil, which is short for cannabidiol oil, is a cannabinoid extract that is alleged to have the health benefits of cannabis (e.g. pain relief, easing of inflammation, anxiety management and the treatment of epilepsy) without the psychoactive effects of marijuana. CBD Oil is sold as a supplement in marijuana dispensaries, nutrition stores, and even as an additive in smoothies. While the popularity of CBD Oil is growing substantially, the product remains unregulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, leading to wide discrepancies in the product's ingredients and quality. The variety of ingredients and compounding methods may have significant ramifications for consumers depending on Federal and state law and the interpretation of those laws by state law and health code enforcement agencies.

Is CBD Oil Legal Under Federal Law?

Yes, if it is produced within federal guidelines.

As of December 20, 2018, the Fed Gov has legalized hemp that has a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of no more than 0.3% by removing it from Schedule I of the controlled substances act. States and Indian Tribes may regulate the production of Hemp by submitting a plan to the USDA. This bill also makes hemp producers eligible for the federal crop insurance program and certain USDA research grants.

With the passing of the new 2018 Farm Bill, hemp and hemp-derived products have been officially removed from the purview of the Controlled Substances Act, such that they are no longer subject to Schedule I status. Meaning that so long as CBD is extracted from hemp and completely pure (with less than 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis of THC, something the DEA doubts is possible) and grown by licensed farmers in accordance with state and federal regulations, it is legal as a hemp product.

However, in 2016 the Drug Enforcement Agency released an administrative ruling considering CBD Oil to be a Schedule One drug, comparable to heroin, peyote and LSD, operating on the theory that it is extracted from the same parts of the Cannabis sativa plant that contain THC, the active ingredient of marijuana. CBD consumers and manufacturers assert that CBD can also be extracted from the non-intoxicating parts of the Cannabis sativa plant that produce hemp, however, a recent 9th Circuit decision affirmed the DEA's authority to classify CBD Oil as within their administrative purview.²

For CBD Oil to be considered legal in the Federal system under the DEA's guidelines it must “consist[] solely of parts of the cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana.” In the definition of marijuana given by the Controlled Substances Act, the “mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or . . . any other . . derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks” are excluded from the definition. Presently the DEA considers an extraction process using only the parts of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana to be “not practical.” This is because the extraction process used would “diminish any trace amounts of cannabinoids that end up in the finished product.”

Is CBD Oil Illegal Under the Laws of the Various Individual States?

Yes, CBD is legal, but not in all states.

At the state level, CBD Oil is considered legal in the states where marijuana is legal for recreational use (Alaska, California, Colorado, DC, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont). Twenty-nine states have made marijuana legal for medical use in various quantities and CBD is also considered legal under those state laws, irrespective of the THC content of the source of the oil. In states that have not decriminalized marijuana, CBD Oil is also likely illegal.

Is CBD Oil Legal In Texas?

NO, unless you fall within the qualifications set by the Compassionate Use Act.

If you are prescribed the use of medical CBD oil and use ‘low-THC” CBD, then the use is legal. Texas has legalized marijuana for medical use only, but only in a very narrow set of circumstances. The Compassionate Use Act of 2015 authorizes the prescription of “low-THC cannabis,” defined as having no more than 0.5% THC for patients diagnosed with intractable epilepsy and entered into the state-maintained “compassionate-use registry.”³ The Act requires prescription by two physicians however, it is currently illegal under federal law for a physician to “prescribe” marijuana. Under a 2000 court ruling, it is legal for physicians to “recommend” marijuana to their patients but the language of the Compassionate Use Act calls for a prescription, setting up a conflict with Federal law.⁴ Additionally, to qualify for the medical use of CBD, the patient must have tried two FDA-approved drugs and found them to be ineffective. There are currently three dispensaries licensed by Texas to sell qualifying products to authorized consumers.

If you do not fall within the qualifications set by the Compassionate Use Act, then possession of CDB oil containing any amount of THC is against Texas law. The State definition of marijuana closely tracks the Federal definition. The Texas Health and Safety Code defines marijuana as “the plant Cannabis sativa . . . and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of that plant or its seeds.” The Code excludes “the mature stalks of the plant or fiber produced from the stalks [and] a compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, fiber, oil.” Texas does not currently have legislation allowing for the cultivation of hemp, though industrial hemp derived from the mature stalks of the Cannabis sativa plant may be sold and consumed.

What is the Penalty for Possession of CBD Oil in Texas?

In Texas, if you possess CBD oil with any trace of THC, you could be charged with a Felony for Possession of a Controlled Substance in Penalty Group 2, which (depending on the weight in grams) can carry a range of punishment from 180 days in a state jail facility up to 20+ years in prison and a fine not to exceed $10,000. Several of our clients have been arrested for possessing CBD oil after officers performed a field test and discovered that yielded a positive result for THC.

If the CBD oil does not contain any THC, is it currently a Schedule V substance not in any penalty group. Possession of CBD with no THC can be charged as a Class B Misdemeanor with a punishment range of 0 - 180 days in jail and a fine up to $2,000.

What To Look For In CBD Oil In Texas

CBD Oil made from the mature stalks of the Cannabis sativa plant are likely in conformity with both Federal and Texas State law. Consumers seeking to purchase CBD Oil in Texas should look for a product advertised as being the product of “industrial hemp” or “mature hemp.” Products advertised as containing “THC” or “CBD Oil” should be avoided because of potential conflict with State and Federal laws.

• Texas consumers with intractable epilepsy may seek to join the Compassionate Use Registry and get a prescription for CBD Oil containing less than 0.5% THC from an authorized dispensary.
• Physicians should be mindful that “prescribing” CBD Oil to Texas residents under the Compassionate Use Act may fall into conflict with existing Federal law.
• Retailers that are not one of the three state-authorized dispensaries authorized by the Compassionate Use Act should take care to carry only products that do not advertise themselves as containing CBD Oil but instead focus on being the product of industrial hemp.

Where Can I Purchase CBD Oil with 0% THC?

While there are many CBD oil stores popping up all over Texas, we have found one near our office that sells CBD Oil with 0% THC in it. They test it to confirm the THC content so that you can be sure of what you are getting. Visit Your CBD Store at https://yourcbdstorekeller.com to learn more or purchase their CBD products online. But remember that even though many agencies are not choosing to arrest or prosecute for  zero THC CBD oil, the Tarrant County DA's office is still filing these cases if a person is arrested.

Sources:

1. H.R.2642 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Agricultural Act of 2014.
2. Hemp Industries Association v. USDEA, No. 17-70162
3. SB339  Texas Compassionate Use Program
4. Conant v. McCaffrey  WL 1281174

Trial Court Failed to Give Unanimity Instruction to the Jury

The Court of Criminal Appeals recently handed down an opinion regarding a unanimity jury instruction in an aggravated sexual assault case. The issue before the Court was whether the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that it must be unanimous in deciding how the sexual contact occurred when there were multiple allegations. The Court of Criminal Appeals found the jury instruction to be erroneous but concluded no harm occurred.

French v. State, (Court of Criminal Appeals 2018).

The Facts—The Defendant Was Convicted for Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child

The defendant was originally indicted on a single count of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The indictment alleged that the defendant caused the penetration of the child’s anus by the defendant’s sexual organ. Before trial though, the indictment was amended to add “contact with” and “penetration of” the sexual organ of the child by the defendant’s sexual organ. As a result, the indictment presented four options for a conviction: (1) the defendant contacted the child’s anus with his sexual organ; (2) the defendant penetrated the child’s anus with his sexual organ; (3) the defendant contacted the child’s sexual organ with his sexual organ; and/or (4) the defendant penetrated the child’s sexual organ with his sexual organ.

At trial, the jury instructions authorized the jury to convict the defendant on any one of the four theories. In addition, the trial court explicitly instructed the jury that they need not all agree on the manner in which the sexual assault was committed. This instruction essentially authorized the jury to convict the defendant without agreeing as to which orifice he had “contacted or penetrated”—even though there was little to no evidence presented that defendant ever contacted or penetrated the child’s sexual organ. This prompted the defendant to object and ask the court for a unanimity instruction regarding the manner in which the sexual assault was committed. However, the court overruled the objection and the defendant was subsequently convicted.

The Court of Appeals Reversed the Defendant’s Conviction—Holding the Trial Court Erred in Failing to Submit a Proper Instruction Which Caused “Some Harm”

On appeal, the defendant argued that the jury charge failed to follow the juror unanimity requirement because it did not require the jury to agree as to which orifice he contacted and/or penetrated. For double jeopardy purposes, he argued the theories were considered distinct and separate offenses, each of which demanded juror unanimity for a conviction. The court of appeals agreed, and it held that the trial court erred by failing to submit proper instructions. In light of this error, the court of appeals determined that the erroneous jury charge was sufficient to invoke the “some harm” standard under Almanza, which required a reversal.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Reversed the Court of Appeals’ Judgment—Finding No Actual Harm Occurred

On petition for discretionary review, the State did not contest the erroneous jury charge. Rather, it argued that any error in the jury charge as to the unanimity requirement did not result in harm to the defendant. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.

In analyzing whether there was “some harm,” the Court of Criminal Appeals considered the trial court’s error with respect to the four factors set out in Almanza: “(1) the entire jury charge, (2) the state of the evidence, (3) the jury arguments, and (4) any other relevant information as revealed by the record as a whole.”
The Court of Criminal Appeals noted that in concluding that “some harm” occurred the court of appeals only relied upon the second Almanza factor—the state of the evidence. That court identified there was “some evidence in the record” for the jury to potentially conclude that the defendant penetrated both the child’s anus and sexual organ with his own sexual organ. And, since there was “some evidence” it believed that the jury could have regarded itself as authorized to convict different ways without reaching any agreement on a specific theory beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, even considering the above reasoning, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined there was no harm suffered when taking into consideration all four of the Almanza factors. The Court explained that “the risk that a rational juror would have convicted the defendant on the basis that he contacted and/or penetrated the child’s sexual organ with his own—and not also on the basis that he contacted and/or penetrated the child’s anus—is so ‘highly unlikely’ as to be ‘almost infinitesimal.’” Not only was there overwhelming evidence at trial that suggested anal contact and penetration occurred, there was no encouragement for a specific finding, and the defendant’s only defense was that it never happened. All of this supports the Court’s conclusion that the harm was merely hypothetical and not actual. As such, the Court reversed and remanded the case even in light of the error.