Vevor Tools - Deaths Lawsuits
- Thread starter gamp945
- Start date
slowtwitch73
Well-known member
If you are in the tool game, there is liability involved and there WILL be lawsuits ranging from business practices to death/injury.
Do a search on "(tool makers/sellers name) lawsuit" . Even hallowed SnapOn steps in it routinely. Par for the course.
Do a search on "(tool makers/sellers name) lawsuit" . Even hallowed SnapOn steps in it routinely. Par for the course.
I have some Vevor stuff.
I rate it the same as I rate anything from HF from the tent in the grocery store parking lot grabbing 8 roll pack for 50 cents electrical tape that doesn't even stick to itself and 25 cent screwdrivers made of softer metal than your screws directly out of the shipping carton days.
I rate it the same as I rate anything from HF from the tent in the grocery store parking lot grabbing 8 roll pack for 50 cents electrical tape that doesn't even stick to itself and 25 cent screwdrivers made of softer metal than your screws directly out of the shipping carton days.
Last edited:
reader2580
Well-known member
Where do you find a jack these days not made in China? I bought an AC Hydraulics floor jack made in Denmark about six months ago.
four.cycle
Well-known member
While there may occasionally be suits filed against manufacturers seeking compensation for injuries or death, the multiple suits filed against Vevor primarily involve patent infringement (cited in post #10 of this thread.) There are some personal injury cases filed against the company as well, in addition to many of their products having been recalled by the Consumer Safety Products Commission (or alternatively outright banned in the U.K., as they were considered dangerous.)
That is hardly "par for the course" here.
Vitamix sues Vevor (and others ) for patent infringement
Meanwhile…
www.cleveland.com
Seems a bit hypocritical or maybe that’s just how business is done
Meanwhile…
Vitamix ordered to pay $23 million in damages for patent infringement
Vitamix Corp. of Olmsted Township lost the latest round in its five-year court battle over its five-sided blending jar.
www.cleveland.com
Seems a bit hypocritical or maybe that’s just how business is done
slowtwitch73
Well-known member
This has been covered. Snapon has also infringed on patents.
Vevor is a relatively new company, and obviosuly a different model that SnapOn so yeah.. plenty of infringement cases. Not surprising.
My point is, form one end of the tool spectrum to the other.. represented by Vevor and Snap-on...this stuff happens.
Saying 'Oh my Gosh Vevor!' is clutching at pearls imo.
bornbadbob
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2025
- Messages
- 214
I have a few Vevor pieces, nothing that would kill me if it broke though For safety equipment I want name brands. The Vevor pieces that I have perform as advertised no issues.
neophyte
Well-known member
I presume this must have been a “Design Parent” lawsuit, but the articles really don’t make it clear, just referring to a “Patent Lawsuit”.Vitamix sues Vevor (and others ) for patent infringement
Meanwhile…
Vitamix ordered to pay $23 million in damages for patent infringement
Vitamix Corp. of Olmsted Township lost the latest round in its five-year court battle over its five-sided blending jar.
Seems a bit hypocritical or maybe that’s just how business is done
The problem, is how close an aesthetic design has to be before the design violates another “Design Patent”, and design patents are related to aesthetics.
While the two blender jugs look close to identical with a quick look, there are distinct differences in the aesthetics of the two.
The handle ends are different.
The base that mounts yo the motor unit is distinctly different.
The K-Tec Blendtec jar has sharper corners than the Vitamix jar.
There appear to be shallow ribs down the top corners of the Blendtec jar, which do not appear on the Vitamic jar.
Arguing that a five sided jar is “distinctive” enough seems blatantly questionable as a claim.
The motor units from both manufacturers are distinctly different. (Which is presumably why the motor base does not appear to be mentioned in the article).
While it might be possible someone from Vitamix liked the aesthetics of the Blendtec jar, and decided to emulate the design, something that is routinely done in product design, the Vitamix jar is definitely not a direct copy, and at worst I would say this judgement could just be bad luck for Vitamix, rather than “blatant” patent infringement.
I have no clue how the Vevor blender compares.
Attachments
mike93lx
ALLIANCE MEMBER
The latter
four.cycle
Well-known member
Well, that is not at all what I said, first of all.
If you do not wish to look at the evidence collectively, that is your choice. There is a lot of reading involved to wade through those legal complaints.
If you would prefer to dismiss all of it based on anecdotal "Oh this guy did it" stories, that is your choice.
I don't know of any patent infringement suits in which Snap-on was the defendent. Plaintiff, yes. Defendent - which cases?
The only Vevor thing I have that could kill me is the airbag jack for my semi, but it could fall and still not kill me because the ground clearance is too high.
Worst case it bruises my fat belly.
Also there's no reason to lift the truck except for wheel removal, in which case you're not crawling under anyway.
There is a legal theory that justifies going after Amazon, assuming the claim of liability is reasonable. Basically the idea is that it costs society as a whole when someone is injured in a tort. Ideally we would decide that the company that created the defective tool should pay. However, if they can't (imported tool, no US assets) then we should find a second party to pay. The thinking is, what is worse for society as a whole, the seller has to absorb some of the liability for the harm or the family gets nothing. To a large extent this is a societal value judgement.
Anyway, I do agree with the courts (assuming the tort is legitimate). Vevor, the seller of a defective tool is likely most liable (I will assume no misuse). However, Amazon would be next as they did profit from the sale. From a societal POV it's generally better to hold the seller at least partially liable vs leave the cost entirely on the customer. It also creates an incentive for Amazon to police the products they sell since they can be held liable for harms from the failures.
Anyway, I do agree with the courts (assuming the tort is legitimate). Vevor, the seller of a defective tool is likely most liable (I will assume no misuse). However, Amazon would be next as they did profit from the sale. From a societal POV it's generally better to hold the seller at least partially liable vs leave the cost entirely on the customer. It also creates an incentive for Amazon to police the products they sell since they can be held liable for harms from the failures.
Well, if he worked for that shipping company and they supplied him with the cheapest **** imaginable, and it failed he should be suing them.
According to the Internet, he was anOwner operator so he would’ve purchased that securement equipment himself
Ultradog MN
Well-known member
Buy cheap **** from China and save enough money to pay for your funeral.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Same. I was hesitant because of the high price, but I just love using it. Totally worth it.
rust in the eye
Well-known member
Vevor's* business model is pretty clear.
Stolen intellectual property so little to no development cost and cheapest manufacturing to serve a hungry market for cheap goods conveniently half a world away. What's not to like?
Sell the **** of it until the heat gets turned up then move on to another.
Good luck collecting these judgements. Actual sellers (Mr Bezos) should be held accountable as well, again good luck collecting.
* I own a Vevor power earth auger which seems identical to the one sold by the good folks at Harbor Freight. It works just fine for me. It will twist your wrists clean off if not careful but that is the nature of the beast.
Stolen intellectual property so little to no development cost and cheapest manufacturing to serve a hungry market for cheap goods conveniently half a world away. What's not to like?
Sell the **** of it until the heat gets turned up then move on to another.
Good luck collecting these judgements. Actual sellers (Mr Bezos) should be held accountable as well, again good luck collecting.
* I own a Vevor power earth auger which seems identical to the one sold by the good folks at Harbor Freight. It works just fine for me. It will twist your wrists clean off if not careful but that is the nature of the beast.
GarageHobbyist
Well-known member
I have been sent quite a few products, and they have all worked for their purpose. Tool wise I don't think I have kept anything long term, I do what I need to do and give them away or sell them. I will say they aren't my favorite company to work with.
But.... if you need an ice cream maker or hot dog roller grill, I will vouch for those
But.... if you need an ice cream maker or hot dog roller grill, I will vouch for those
Makes you wonder if it was really the tool’s fault or just misuse. Jack stands and harnesses only work if used right. Hard to say without the full picture.
Doesn't seem like anyone really cares what's real any more.
Just pick a side and go with it.
The hit-piece article started with trashing Vevor, then moves completely to trashing Amazon.
I hate to trash a prestigious paper, like the Post and don't want to go there and call it "fake news" but the jack dummy was either "crushed" or "smooshed" (depending on the story) bringing on his demise.
Colorado dad with ‘zest for life’ killed in tragic parachute mishap while skydiving
A Colorado father with a “zest for life” was tragically killed last week when his parachute malfunctioned while skydiving in Texas.
nypost.com
Vercingetorix
Well-known member
Wonder if Vevor sells half price parachutes.
Doesn't seem like anyone really cares what's real any more.
Just pick a side and go with it.
The hit-piece article started with trashing Vevor, then moves completely to trashing Amazon.
I hate to trash a prestigious paper, like the Post and don't want to go there and call it "fake news" but the jack dummy was either "crushed" or "smooshed" (depending on the story) bringing on his demise.
Colorado dad with ‘zest for life’ killed in tragic parachute mishap while skydiving
A Colorado father with a “zest for life” was tragically killed last week when his parachute malfunctioned while skydiving in Texas.
Its totally inconceivable that 2 people in totally different locations have the same name
pcmeiners
Well-known member
"This jack sold by Vevor on Amazon.com buckled and collapsed while it was holding up a truck, killing a California man last year, according to a lawsuit."
Yes a guy was killed using a jack made for suspending pipe to support his truck, sounds like a Darwin award candidate who succeeded.
Yes a guy was killed using a jack made for suspending pipe to support his truck, sounds like a Darwin award candidate who succeeded.
I'm good with that, natural selection and all that. Anyone who is dumb enough to get under a vehicle with only one means of saving their life is dumber than plain donuts.
mike93lx
ALLIANCE MEMBER
Your take is that someone "dumb" should die, correct?
My take is if you're dumb enough to get under a vehicle with only one means of saving your life you are dumber than plain donuts.
mike93lx
ALLIANCE MEMBER
So he made a dumb mistake and it's fine that he died because of it.
But is it Vevors fault?
You have a long history here of being a bit of a Drama Queen. People die every single day of making stupid decisions, I'm sorry he lost his life but I'm more sorry someone didn't educate him more on the simple fact you don't get under a 4,000 pound device and trust a POS $60 anything.
Last edited:
mike93lx
ALLIANCE MEMBER
Got it bud
nadogail
Well-known member
The Gene Pool already has been polluted, natural selection just might make a difference, after many generations.
WWheeler
Well-known member
Only Vevor tool I've used was a Toyota rear axle bearing tube my nephew bought since he found out not many places around here will even quote replacing his rear bearings / seals for anything less than a FU price. Right out the box I had to modify it a bit to make it work with my Harbor Freight 20 ton press, but that's not Vevor's fault. Looks to me like theirs is exactly the same as at least a dozen other companies are also selling, most for more than Vevor's asking. Other than that it did the job OK. If he'd have let me keep it here in my shop I'd have used it again, but I think he probably got what he could back out of it off marketplace.
The next time that same job came up for me I opted for an MCSpecial, made-in-USA kit that was way better built - much thicker steel and heavier - and it came with a few extras that made the job a lot quicker and easier, like a little plate for snatching the bearing race off with the press. It also fit my HF press and it even cost a little less than Vevor is asking. Highly recommend it to anyone doing a Toyota tacoma,tundra,4runner, Lexus GX*, etc rear axle. It's THE tool for that job.
I do have my sights set on a Vevor mag drill. The price is a lot less than I've seen for others and it's something I could use for an upcoming project but don't suspect I'll have all that much regular use for after. It seems to get good enough reviews that it'll work for my uses, and I'm not worried I'm going to get injured or killed using it.
The next time that same job came up for me I opted for an MCSpecial, made-in-USA kit that was way better built - much thicker steel and heavier - and it came with a few extras that made the job a lot quicker and easier, like a little plate for snatching the bearing race off with the press. It also fit my HF press and it even cost a little less than Vevor is asking. Highly recommend it to anyone doing a Toyota tacoma,tundra,4runner, Lexus GX*, etc rear axle. It's THE tool for that job.
I do have my sights set on a Vevor mag drill. The price is a lot less than I've seen for others and it's something I could use for an upcoming project but don't suspect I'll have all that much regular use for after. It seems to get good enough reviews that it'll work for my uses, and I'm not worried I'm going to get injured or killed using it.
No If He wasn’t following,any jack safety procedures, who knows if the jack actually “collapsed “ or if It just slipped off because he didn’t have it on right?
It probably says somewhere in the jack user manual not to climb under it without proper support
The family and their lawyers are trying to get a payday out of it
pcmeiners
Well-known member
Check out the actual jack and it's stated use. The guy was far dumber than plain donuts.
Last edited:
Do we actually know the details of how this was used? I mean it's possible the deceased was using the jack outside of any reasonable load case. It's also possible the tool was junk. We really don't know and I'm not 100% that I would trust a lay jury to get this right. At the same time, I can see this as an issue with really cheap junk safety related tools. It seems like the failed chain tie down was probably not used outside of it's expected use case yet snapped. It wasn't clear if the cause of death was getting hit by the snapped chain/load then falling on hard ground or if he was stabilizing himself using the chain/tie down then fell when it was no longer under tension. I have more sympathy for the former vs the latter. You shouldn't put yourself in a situation where you loose stability because something like that slips. However, assuming it was one of those two cases, in both cases the device failed at an unacceptably low load. If I were on that jury I might assign relative liability differently in those two cases but in both cases I would put at least some fault on the maker of a tie down that failed early.
In the case of the pipe jack I would have to ask if the load applied was within the jack's rated limit and if the direction of application was within reason. For example, let's say that jack is rated at 1000lb (no idea the actual rating). I lift my rear engine car with a typical 2 post lift. I put the jack under the back of the car just in case the thing tips backwards. In my hypothetical it shouldn't see more than 300lb of otherwise stabilized load. Car is on the lift, jack is under the back and with 301lbs on the jack, it fails and the car falls on me. Well, I could see making the case that even though I wasn't using it to hold a pipe, I was using it within it's reasonable weight limit. Of course, part of the problem here is we are all speculating without knowing the full details of what happened. Even if the guy was totally wrong in how it was being used, I do see it as a problem that the company effectively has no presence in the US thus they are effectively judgement proof. The same applies to makers of things like very cheap Li-ion battery packs for scooters and ebikes that catch fire.
In the case of the pipe jack I would have to ask if the load applied was within the jack's rated limit and if the direction of application was within reason. For example, let's say that jack is rated at 1000lb (no idea the actual rating). I lift my rear engine car with a typical 2 post lift. I put the jack under the back of the car just in case the thing tips backwards. In my hypothetical it shouldn't see more than 300lb of otherwise stabilized load. Car is on the lift, jack is under the back and with 301lbs on the jack, it fails and the car falls on me. Well, I could see making the case that even though I wasn't using it to hold a pipe, I was using it within it's reasonable weight limit. Of course, part of the problem here is we are all speculating without knowing the full details of what happened. Even if the guy was totally wrong in how it was being used, I do see it as a problem that the company effectively has no presence in the US thus they are effectively judgement proof. The same applies to makers of things like very cheap Li-ion battery packs for scooters and ebikes that catch fire.