Skip Navigation

Eligible for a Fire Pit lawsuit?

Indoor Fire Pit Lawsuit Indicates Flame Jet Set User’s Body on Fire

Indoor Fire Pit Lawsuit Indicates Flame Jet Set User's Body on Fire

A New York woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging an indoor tabletop fire pit suddenly burst into flames during normal use, setting her body on fire and causing severe, permanent burns to her head, face, chest, ears and hands.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Rachel Lerner and her husband, Shaya Lerner, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 12. It names MT Global Enterprises LLC, doing business as Stonhome, and Amazon.com Inc. as defendants.

The Lerners claim a Stonhome tabletop fire pit was defectively designed to burn pooled isopropyl alcohol, commonly known as rubbing alcohol, which can suddenly eject flames that travel outside of the device and burn individuals or objects.

They lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon liable as a seller and distributor of the fire pit, pointing to a 2024 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) decision that found the online retailer may bear responsibility for recalling certain hazardous products it receives, stores and delivers. 

Tabletop Fire Pit Flame Jet Risks

Tabletop fire pits are small, portable devices designed for use on tables and other flat surfaces, where they burn liquid alcohol or similar fuels to create an open flame for heat, decoration or cooking. Depending on the product, they may be marketed for use on patios, decks and balconies, as well as inside the home.

Some tabletop fire pits require users to pour liquid fuel directly into an open reservoir before lighting the device. These fuels can reach temperatures above 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit, potentially causing third-degree burns almost immediately, while spilled or pooled fuel can ignite and rapidly spread flames to nearby people or surfaces.

In recent years, these hazards have been linked to a growing number of serious tabletop fire pit burn injuries, affecting both individuals using or refueling the devices and nearby bystanders.

As a result, tabletop fire pit lawsuits are being pursued against manufacturers, distributors and retailers, alleging they sold dangerously designed products without sufficient safety features, refueling instructions or warnings about risks such as invisible flames and flame jetting.

Tabletop Fire Pit Lawyers
Nitrous-Oxide-Lawsuits

Indoor Fire Pit Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Shaya Lerner purchased a Stonhome Tabletop Fire Pit Bowl through Amazon on December 23, 2024, for $40.87.

The purchase came just days after the CPSC expanded a warning about pooled alcohol fire pits. Stonhome also posted a safety warning on Instagram on December 27, referencing the federal alert, but the Lerners allege they were never adequately warned about the risk.

The complaint states that Amazon was later required to notify purchasers about the hazards and offer refunds intended to remove affected products from use.

On January 25, 2025, Rachel and Shaya Lerner were using the fire pit inside their home when it allegedly produced a sudden flame jet that struck Rachel and ignited her clothing.

Rachel allegedly suffered severe burns to her head, face, chest, ears and hands, resulting in ongoing medical treatment and lasting limitations. Shaya witnessed the incident and claims he suffered severe emotional distress after seeing his wife engulfed in flames.

The lawsuit alleges the fire pit was defectively designed because it required users to burn combustible isopropyl alcohol in an open container, creating a foreseeable risk of flame jetting and serious burn injuries.

The plaintiffs also claim the defendants failed to adequately test the product or provide sufficient warnings about the danger. According to the complaint, Amazon did not send the Lerners a product safety email specifically warning about the flame jetting risk until July 4, 2025, more than five months after Rachel was burned. A second email sent July 14 provided refund instructions.

โ€œDefendants were further negligent in failing to effectively communicate to Plaintiffs a reasonable and adequate warning and instruction respecting the nature, extent, and severity of the danger of devastating injury and harm presented to consumers of the subject product, such as the Plaintiffs herein, including the negligent failure to recall the subject product in a reasonable and timely manner due to the propensity of the subject product to cause devastating injury and harm.โ€

โ€” Rachel Lerner et al. v. MT Global Enterprises LLC et al.

The Lerners raise allegations of negligence, strict product liability, breach of implied warranty and breach of express warranty. Shaya also brings a “zone of danger” negligence claim based on the emotional and physical injuries he allegedly suffered after witnessing the fire engulf his wife. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

Tabletop Fire Pit Lawsuits

Amid a growing number of recalls and reports of serious burns, attorneys are reviewing potential tabletop fire pit lawsuits nationwide for individuals injured by flame jetting, flashbacks and explosions, as well as families who lost loved ones in these incidents.

Reported injuries and losses associated with tabletop fire pits may include:

  • Second- and third-degree burns requiring medical care
  • Permanent scarring, disfigurement, nerve damage or reduced mobility
  • Respiratory injuries from sudden flames or burning fuel
  • Severe burns caused by flare-ups during refueling
  • Fatal injuries following fire pit explosions
  • Lost wages and reduced earning capacity
  • Hospitalization, rehabilitation and other ongoing medical treatment
  • Emotional and psychological trauma resulting from permanent injuries

Individuals who suffered serious burns or other injuries involving a tabletop fire pit may be entitled to financial compensation. Tabletop fire pit attorneys can investigate the device involved, determine whether it was defective or subject to a recall and explain what legal options may be available.

These claims are being handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys receive payment only if compensation is recovered.

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

Michael Adams
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

A California woman’s Dupixent lymphoma lawsuit claims the manufacturers knew of the eczema drug’s cancer risks, but refused to inform doctors and patients.
A FanDuel addiction lawsuit claims a Pennsylvania man wagered massive amounts of money after being subjected to a tailored promotional campaign designed to exploit his gambling habits.
A spinal cord stimulator lawsuit from a Kentucky man claims his Boston Scientific device was defectively designed, leaving him with permanent nerve damage and wire fragments fused into his bones.

About the writer

Michael Adams

Michael Adams

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.