San Diego Man Sues Amazon Over Explosive Firepit Incident
A San Diego resident has initiated legal proceedings against Amazon, following a disturbing incident in which a tabletop fire pit detonated in his face last year, subsequently leading to an extended hospitalization.
This lawsuit raises pivotal questions regarding the accountability of the e-commerce titan for merchandise it does not actually manufacture.
Anthony Trevino, a 31-year-old ex-search and rescue swimmer, sustained third-degree burns over a significant portion of his body while attempting to refill a Colson “Tabletop Rubbing Alcohol Outdoor Fire Pit,” as detailed in the lawsuit filed this past Wednesday.
Trevino’s attorneys argue that Amazon neglected to inform consumers about the perilous nature of the Colson model, which had been recalled due to alarming safety concerns in 2024.
As of now, Amazon has not responded to requests for commentary on the matter.
“I never imagined a product sold to me as ‘safe and easy’ would do this to me in my own home,” Trevino articulated in a press release.
“My vocation was about rescuing individuals from peril. While I cannot change what transpired, I can hold Amazon accountable to prevent the continued sale of products that hold the potential to drastically change lives.”
On September 17, 2025, Trevino was attempting to refill his tabletop firepit when he mistakenly believed the flame had extinguished.
Unbeknownst to him, remnants of burning alcohol were still present, leading to a catastrophic “flame jetting” explosion.
This event unleashed a fireball that engulfed his face and body, necessitating weeks of hospitalization, as outlined in the complaint.
It is alleged that the intensity of the explosion was sufficient to devastate both artificial turf and lighting on his balcony.
Trevino’s legal representatives contend that Amazon bears responsibility for damages incurred due to a recalled product sold through its platform, regardless of the fact that Amazon did not produce the item.
This case epitomizes an emerging legal doctrine that has gained traction in early California rulings and may expose Amazon to substantial legal repercussions in its marketplace, which processes more than 15 million orders daily.
A notable 2020 ruling by California’s 4th District Court of Appeal established that Amazon may indeed be held liable for defective products provided by third-party sellers on its platform.
This decision was rooted in a case where a woman in California claimed that a laptop battery purchased on Amazon exploded, causing her considerable burns.
Amazon contended that it should not be held accountable as it merely operated an online marketplace, without distributing, manufacturing, or selling the product. The court, however, arrived at the opposite conclusion.
While the 2020 ruling is limited to California, Amazon is actively contesting similar interpretations in various legal scenarios across the United States.
A case currently progressing through federal court in Florida, filed earlier this year, posits analogous liability for Amazon following an incident wherein a child suffered severe burns due to a tabletop firepit mishap.
Concerns about tabletop firepits, particularly regarding flame jetting—where flammable liquids ignited over a direct flame result in fireball-like explosions—have prompted countries to alert consumers.
Western Australia enacted a ban on such products in 2017, while Canada restricted some models in 2019. In the United States, a federal recall was issued for the Colson firepit in 2024.
While Amazon endeavored to facilitate that recall, which it is legally mandated to do for certain items, its notifications merely informed customers that the tabletop firepit “may not meet current mandatory or voluntary safety standards,” according to the lawsuit.
“Amazon curates its inventory, takes a percentage from every sale, and advised Anthony on the fuel to purchase,” stated Jeremy Robinson, Trevino’s attorney, in a press release.
“When you stock the shelves and process transactions, you assume ownership of the consequences faced by innocent customers whose lives are irrevocably changed.”
Source link: Sfgate.com.
