Complain about a product or service

Origin of California Cell Phone Fire Disputed

By Joseph S. Enoch
ConsumerAffairs.com

January 17, 2007

Cell Phone Hazards • Study Finds Little Short-Term Cell Phone Health Risk • Cell Phones Linked to Bee Decline • Mayo Clinic Finds Cell Phones Safe in Hospitals • Origin of California Cell Phone Fire Disputed • Cell Phone Ignites, California Man Severely Burned • Study: Cell Phone Users Have Lower Sperm Counts • Study: Drivers Using Cell Phones As Bad As Drunks • Doctors Warn Against Cell Phone Use In Storms • Cell Phones Cleared in Gas Fire • Sleep With Your Cell Phone? Don't Forget the Dog • Feds Warn of Cell Phone Battery Hazards • Risk of Cell Phone Explosions Growing • Cell Phone Catches Fire • Battery Recall • Traffic Tickets • Gasoline Fires • Radiation Fears --- • Consumer Complaints

Fire investigators have reversed their original conclusion that a Vallejo, Calif. man was severely burned by a cell phone that ignited his clothes but the victim's lawyer and consumer organizations aren't convinced.

The cell phone, a Nokia 2125i, was tested by a Nokia engineer and according to William Tweedy, the fire investigator who oversaw the tests, the charred phone was still able to make phone calls. Tweedy had originally attributed the blaze to the Nokia, which was in the victim's pocket when the fire began.

The phone would not still work if it short-circuited or if the lithium ion battery, the most likely source of flames, combusted, according to Nokia spokesman Keith Nowak.

"A cell phone can't create a spark," Nowak said. "The most likely way a spark can happen is from a short in a battery, and if that happened, the phone wouldn't work anymore."

But some industry professionals doubt the validity of the tests.

"Nothing is impossible, but if a fire was bad enough to severely burn a man, it would have destroyed the delicate circuitry in the phone," Sharon Hilliard of the Wireless Consumer Alliance told The Contra Costa Times. "That the phone still works is really what I can't understand. Are we sure no one switched phones or batteries? It defies logic."

Tweedy insisted he was present for the tests and that there was no foul play.

Meanwhile, 59-year-old Luis Picaso is still recovering and has had at least one skin graft and suffered burns over 59 percent of his body. His lawyer, Vance Owen, said he plans to sue Nokia.

Owen said the cell phone is the logical culprit because Picaso is not a smoker. Owen told The Contra Costa Times he is not disheartened by Nokia's findings.

Owen said having Nokia determine whether their product caused the blaze was "like asking an arsonist if he started the fire."

Tweedy also said that he had ruled out "everything" in the second-story apartment as a possible source of the flames, including the stove, electrical outlets and ignitable liquids. He said that whatever caused the fire was destroyed by the flames. Owen has said that Picaso is not a smoker.

Government statistics indicate that only about 100 cell phones caught fire between 2002 to 2004, though more than 200 million cell phones are in use. When they do catch fire, the culprit is nearly always a replacement battery, experts say.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Share		Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |