Lawsuit Alleges Ninja Foodi Tendercrisp Pressure Cooker Exploded Unexpectedly

SharkNinja advertised that the Ninja Foodi Tendercrisp Pressure Cooker had 14 safety features which should have prevented it from exploding, plaintiff says

A Rhode Island woman indicates she was left with severe burns when her Ninja Foodi Tendercrisp pressure cooker exploded unexpectedly, covering her with boiling hot contents that were inside the pot.

Carrie Smith filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 4, indicating that the manufacturer, Sharkninka Operating LLC, designed and sold a dangerous pressure cooker that lacked safety features which should have prevented the explosion.

The case raises allegations similar to those presented in a growing number of pressure cooker explosion lawsuits filed in recent months, each pointing to similar problems with modern electronic pressure cookers, including Ninja Foodi, Instant Pot, Crock Pot and others.

Learn More About

Pressure Cooker Lawsuits

Faulty and defective designs may cause a pressure cooker to explode, resulting in severe burns and injuries.

Learn More About this Lawsuit See If You Qualify For Compensation

According to the lawsuit, Smith suffered serious and substantial burn injuries in January 2021, when the Ninja Foodi Tendercrisp pressure cooker’s lid suddenly and unexpectedly exploded off of the appliance during normal use.

In its marketing material, Sharkninja boasts that the pressure cooker has 14 safety features, which should have prevented such an explosion from happening.

“However, the aforementioned pressure cooker was defectively and negligently designed and manufactured by Defendant SharkNinja in that it failed to properly function as to prevent the lid from being removed with normal force while the unit remained pressurized, despite the appearance that all the pressure had been released, during the ordinary, foreseeable and proper use of cooking food with the product; placing the Plaintiff, her family, and similar consumers in danger while using the pressure cookers,” Smith’s lawsuit states. “Defendant SharkNinja’s pressure cookers possess defects that make them unreasonably dangerous for their intended use by consumers because the lid can be rotated and opened while the unit remains pressurized.”

The lawsuit presents claims of manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence and breach of warranty.

Pressure Cooker Explosion Lawsuits

Modern electronic pressure cookers have become increasingly popular in recent decades, amid marketing that has promoted advanced safety features that were supposed to prevent pressure cooker explosions that have plagued older, stove-top designs. Products have been marketed under a number of brand names, through social media, websites and home shopping stations.

Most of the problems involve similar pressure cooker burn injuries which occurred after the lid was removed while the contents were still under high pressure, typically resulting in burns covering a large percentage of the user’s body. However, other injuries linked to pressure cookers have included eye injuries, broken bones and other complications that resulted from electrocutions, spills or explosions, like in Smith’s case.

As more of these electric pressure cookers have been introduced in recent years, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued several pressure cooker recalls over problems where lids were able to be opened while contents are under pressure, allowing hot contents to be expelled and causing a scald or burn injury to individuals in the immediate area.


"*" indicates required fields

Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.

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

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