Amazon Foot Warmer Lawsuit Alleges Heated Insoles Exploded, Caught Fire

Amazon Foot Warmer Lawsuit Alleges Heated Insoles Exploded, Caught Fire

A newly filed lawsuit claims that Amazon sold defective foot warmers to a Kansas woman that exploded while she was wearing them, causing severe burn injuries to her feet.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Joni Caddell in The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on December 3, naming Amazon.com Inc. and Meisinuo as defendants.

Foot warmers, also known as heated insoles, are rechargeable shoe inserts that use built-in heating elements and a small battery pack to warm the user’s feet in cold conditions. They often include low, medium and high heat settings that can be adjusted by a button or, in some models, a smartphone app.

Although some users turn to these devices for added comfort or to help improve circulation, they have also drawn safety concerns due to reports of overheating lithium-ion batteries causing fires and severe burns.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued several recent warnings for some brands, including Tajarly and iHeat. The alerts follow injuries and incidents in which batteries ignited or exploded, sometimes even when the devices were turned off.

Sports-Betting-Addiction-Lawsuits
Sports-Betting-Addiction-Lawsuits

According to the lawsuit, Caddell purchased the heated insoles from Amazon in November 2023, after seeing that they were advertised on the platform as rechargeable foot warmers suitable for outdoor use. The complaint states the product was stocked, marketed and shipped through Amazon’s “Fulfillment by Amazon” program, which handled warehousing, order processing and delivery.

However, the insoles allegedly exploded and caught fire moments after Caddell inserted them into her boots and began walking outside, causing severe burns to her feet that required emergency medical treatment. Caddell claims she had no way of knowing the insoles posed a fire hazard and was using them exactly as intended when the batteries ignited.

The lawsuit contends that both Amazon and the Chinese manufacturer, Meisinuo, placed a defective and unreasonably dangerous product into the marketplace. It argues the insoles contained design or manufacturing flaws that made them prone to explosion and fire during normal use, and that neither company warned consumers of the risk.

“Defendant Amazon knew, or reasonably should have known, that Plaintiff would not realize the danger of an explosion and fire when using the product for its intended and reasonably foreseeable use.”

Joni Caddell v. Amazon.com Inc. and Meisinuo

Caddell raises claims of strict product liability, negligence and negligent undertaking. She alleges that Amazon was negligent in recommending, marketing and distributing the insoles despite their alleged dangers. The complaint also asserts that Amazon assumed a duty of care through its fulfillment program but failed to ensure the product was safe.

She is seeking damages exceeding $75,000 for medical expenses, pain, suffering and other losses.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Image Credit: Shutterstock.com / bluestork
Written By: Michael Adams

Senior Editor & Journalist

Michael Adams is a senior editor and legal journalist at AboutLawsuits.com with over 20 years of experience covering financial, legal, and consumer protection issues. He previously held editorial leadership roles at Forbes Advisor and contributes original reporting on class actions, cybersecurity litigation, and emerging lawsuits impacting consumers.



0 Comments


This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Share Your Comments

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

MORE TOP STORIES

Parties involved in hair relaxer cancer lawsuits meet with a federal judge tomorrow to update the Court on the status of discovery proceedings ahead of bellwether lawsuits.
A federal judge is expected to decide which scientific experts each side may present during the early Depo-Provera meningioma test trials around the middle of next year.