Overheating of battery: rejection of the application of collective action of a client québécoise de Samsung

Surchauffe de pile: rejet de la demande d’action collective d’une cliente québécoise de Samsung

Devices Galaxy Note 7 has caught fire due to overheating of the battery.

April 9, 2020 14h04

Updated at 16: 37


Overheating of battery: rejection of the application of collective action of a client québécoise de Samsung

Surchauffe de pile: rejet de la demande d’action collective d’une cliente québécoise de Samsung

Isabelle Mathieu

The Sun


Samsung had a crisis on its hands with its smart phones and Galaxy Note 7, that the batteries surchauffaient and threatened to ignite. But the company has taken its responsibilities, finds the superior Court, in rejecting a request for collective action of a client of the Quebec city region.

Patricia Paquette, employed at Videotron, wished to bring to the citizens of Quebec, a collective action of $ 25 million (including $ 5 million in punitive damages) against the company, Samsung Canada. The company has sold close to 25 000 phones Galaxy Note 7 in Canada at the end of the summer of 2016 before the problem of thermal runaway of the batteries appears. Canadian customers have reported up to a thirty of worrying incidents.

Samsung has done a first reminder devices on 2 September offering to the customers to replace their phone with a new device containing a battery provided by another provider or cancel their purchase.

Patricia Paquette is listed in the recall program. In the meantime her second phone, she continued to use the first device it placed them in a metal box to make it reload.

The batteries of the second service provider does not solve the problem, and Samsung decides to stop selling the Galaxy Note 7 to the 11 October 2016.

Consumers can then exchange their device for another Samsung phone with a$ 100 credit or a refund of the price paid for the appliance and the accessories with a$25 credit.

Ms. Paquette opts for the exchange of device. It returns its first in Note 7 to the supplier, but chooses to place his second aircraft at issue on Kijiji. It will eventually exchange it for another device used, that it evaluates to$100.

The lady has filed its request for collective action on November 9, 2016. The file was suspended, in particular because the parties were waiting to see the fate of a use similar in Ontario, appeal which has been rejected.

Judge Daniel Dumais of the Quebec superior Court came to the same conclusion as his colleague in ontario: Samsung has acted quickly and correctly. “It (Samsung) has sought to remove from the market products of concern and offered to replace or refund them. She has taken and assumed his responsibilities with consumers,” wrote the judge Dumais in its decision made public on Thursday.

There is no evidence that Samsung was aware of the problem of overheating of the batteries, note the judge, and therefore no wilful misconduct. “Samsung has publicly denounced the fact to its customers and the public in general, reminds the judge Dumais. She has not hidden the truth or denied the existence of the problem.”

If the mechanism of collective action has a “noble goal” to punish reprehensible behaviour, it must not close its eyes on those who assume their responsibilities, ” insists the judge Dumais.

Patricia Paquette said to have lived the stress and the concern for the risk of fire from his phone. But, notes the judge, she has continued to use his camera, even if it was prohibited. Obviously, she did not consider the situation dangerous, ” notes the judge. It has not been more careful with the second device that it was advertised on Kijiji, added the judge Dumais. In such a context, the court does not see how it could award damages for the stress to the plaintiff.

The compensation offered by the programs, recall is probably not perfect, concedes the superior Court. “However, we cannot require that they all be entirely happy. This is not what is aimed by the process of collective action, recalls the judge Dumais. Regardless of the final outcome, there are always disgruntled. It is the reasonableness of the remedy, necessarily discretionary in such a case, that counts.”

Le Soleil

Share Button

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *