Wednesday, August 5, 2026
San Diego man sues Amazon over exploding tabletop fire pit
The lawsuit seeks to apply California product liability precedent holding Amazon responsible for defective goods sold through its marketplace, even when manufactured and marketed by third-party vendors.
A San Diego man has sued Amazon.com Inc. and two fire pit companies, alleging a tabletop alcohol burner he bought from the online retailer exploded, causing life-altering injuries.
Anthony Trevino's personal injury complaint illustrates the retail giant's growing vulnerability to cases over defective products sold by third parties -- despite the failure of 2020 legislation that would have held the company liable. Instead, the complaint relies on a California appellate decision that found Amazon liable for products that pass through its warehouses and supply chains.
In his complaint filed Wednesday, Trevino sued Amazon, Gusar LLC and Colsen Fire Pits LLC. The former Navy helicopter search-and-rescue swimmer claimed he purchased a Colsen tabletop rubbing alcohol fire pit in 2021, along with isopropyl alcohol Amazon's algorithm recommended as fuel. Trevino v. Amazon.com LLC, case number pending (San Diego County Super. Ct., filed Aug. 5, 2026).
Last September, Trevino was using the device on the balcony of his apartment and attempted to refill it after the flame appeared to be extinguished, according to the complaint. An almost invisible flame allegedly ignited the stream of alcohol, causing an explosion. The lawsuit asserts claims for negligence, defective design, failure to warn, and breach of warranty.
"What Anthony didn't know, but Defendants did know, was this product, and tabletop ethanol burners in general, were and are defective and extremely dangerous, as they were already outlawed in Australia and Canada due to the possibility of causing severe burn injuries," wrote Jeremy K. Robinson, representing Trevino as an attorney with SHK Law Corporation in Encino. "As the Consumer Product Safety Commission explained in 2024, these products are prone to 'flame jetting' where the flame suddenly explodes out of the device, particularly during refilling."
Neither Amazon nor Colsen responded to emails seeking comment.
Robinson wrote that the flames engulfed Trevino's face and upper body, causing extensive third-degree burns. He was hospitalized for weeks and continues to experience scarring, disfigurement, and pain.
The lawsuit alleges tabletop ethanol burners are especially dangerous because their flames can be difficult to see and can travel back into a fuel container during refilling. It says the risk can be reduced through flame arresters, devices that prevent fire from entering the bottle, but no such device was included in the product he purchased.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ordered a mandatory recall of Colsen fire pits in late 2024, according to the filing, months before the incident. Amazon sent Trevino an email about the recall, the complaint states, but did not offer a refund or clearly warn that continued use could cause catastrophic burns. Trevino claimed he did not see the email.
California lawmakers were concerned with a different exploding product back in 2020: batteries. News reports at the time were filled with stories about defective lithium-ion batteries. These showed up in a variety of products, but many of the fires that led to litigation were started by replacement batteries for laptop computers.
These incidents inspired Mark Stone, then chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, to write AB 3262. It would have imposed broader, clearer statutory liability on online marketplaces, including in cases in which they never physically handled the product. The bill easily passed the Assembly but stalled in the Senate amid intense lobbying.
In the meantime, plaintiff Angela Bolger's complaint was working its way through the courts. Bolger claimed she was severely injured in 2016 when her laptop's Chinese-made replacement battery exploded. Weeks before AB 3262 officially died, an appellate court ruled in her favor. Then-appellate Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote for a unanimous panel that Amazon bore liability.
Guerrero reasoned that Amazon had "placed itself" between Bolger and the original seller, including when it stored the battery in its warehouse. Bolger v. Amazon.com LLC, No. D075738 (Cal. App. Aug. 13, 2020).
"Amazon placed itself between Lenoge and Bolger in the chain of distribution of the product at issue here. Amazon accepted possession of the product from Lenoge, stored it in an Amazon warehouse, attracted Bolger to the Amazon website, provided her with a product listing for Lenoge's product, received her payment for the product, and shipped the product in Amazon packaging to her," Guerrero wrote.
In the years since that decision, Amazon has fought a series of cases over how directly it must be involved in the distribution of a product to be held liable under Bolger. In Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC, B297995 (Cal. App. April 26, 2021), the court applied Bolger even though Amazon never possessed or warehoused an allegedly defective hoverboard. Instead, the ruling focused on the company's role in sales, payment, and fulfillment.
According to Trevino's attorneys, they do not know whether the products that injured their client were stored at an Amazon warehouse -- and it does not matter.
"California courts now hold online retailers such as Defendant Amazon liable for harmful products sold through their website," Robinson wrote. "See Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431, 438 ('Whatever term we use to describe Amazon's role, be it 'retailer,' 'distributor,' or merely 'facilitator,' it was pivotal in bringing the product here to the consumer.')"
Anthony Trevino's personal injury complaint illustrates the retail giant's growing vulnerability to cases over defective products sold by third parties -- despite the failure of 2020 legislation that would have held the company liable. Instead, the complaint relies on a California appellate decision that found Amazon liable for products that pass through its warehouses and supply chains.
In his complaint filed Wednesday, Trevino sued Amazon, Gusar LLC and Colsen Fire Pits LLC. The former Navy helicopter search-and-rescue swimmer claimed he purchased a Colsen tabletop rubbing alcohol fire pit in 2021, along with isopropyl alcohol Amazon's algorithm recommended as fuel. Trevino v. Amazon.com LLC, case number pending (San Diego County Super. Ct., filed Aug. 5, 2026).
Last September, Trevino was using the device on the balcony of his apartment and attempted to refill it after the flame appeared to be extinguished, according to the complaint. An almost invisible flame allegedly ignited the stream of alcohol, causing an explosion. The lawsuit asserts claims for negligence, defective design, failure to warn, and breach of warranty.
"What Anthony didn't know, but Defendants did know, was this product, and tabletop ethanol burners in general, were and are defective and extremely dangerous, as they were already outlawed in Australia and Canada due to the possibility of causing severe burn injuries," wrote Jeremy K. Robinson, representing Trevino as an attorney with SHK Law Corporation in Encino. "As the Consumer Product Safety Commission explained in 2024, these products are prone to 'flame jetting' where the flame suddenly explodes out of the device, particularly during refilling."
Neither Amazon nor Colsen responded to emails seeking comment.
Robinson wrote that the flames engulfed Trevino's face and upper body, causing extensive third-degree burns. He was hospitalized for weeks and continues to experience scarring, disfigurement, and pain.
The lawsuit alleges tabletop ethanol burners are especially dangerous because their flames can be difficult to see and can travel back into a fuel container during refilling. It says the risk can be reduced through flame arresters, devices that prevent fire from entering the bottle, but no such device was included in the product he purchased.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ordered a mandatory recall of Colsen fire pits in late 2024, according to the filing, months before the incident. Amazon sent Trevino an email about the recall, the complaint states, but did not offer a refund or clearly warn that continued use could cause catastrophic burns. Trevino claimed he did not see the email.
California lawmakers were concerned with a different exploding product back in 2020: batteries. News reports at the time were filled with stories about defective lithium-ion batteries. These showed up in a variety of products, but many of the fires that led to litigation were started by replacement batteries for laptop computers.
These incidents inspired Mark Stone, then chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, to write AB 3262. It would have imposed broader, clearer statutory liability on online marketplaces, including in cases in which they never physically handled the product. The bill easily passed the Assembly but stalled in the Senate amid intense lobbying.
In the meantime, plaintiff Angela Bolger's complaint was working its way through the courts. Bolger claimed she was severely injured in 2016 when her laptop's Chinese-made replacement battery exploded. Weeks before AB 3262 officially died, an appellate court ruled in her favor. Then-appellate Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote for a unanimous panel that Amazon bore liability.
Guerrero reasoned that Amazon had "placed itself" between Bolger and the original seller, including when it stored the battery in its warehouse. Bolger v. Amazon.com LLC, No. D075738 (Cal. App. Aug. 13, 2020).
"Amazon placed itself between Lenoge and Bolger in the chain of distribution of the product at issue here. Amazon accepted possession of the product from Lenoge, stored it in an Amazon warehouse, attracted Bolger to the Amazon website, provided her with a product listing for Lenoge's product, received her payment for the product, and shipped the product in Amazon packaging to her," Guerrero wrote.
In the years since that decision, Amazon has fought a series of cases over how directly it must be involved in the distribution of a product to be held liable under Bolger. In Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC, B297995 (Cal. App. April 26, 2021), the court applied Bolger even though Amazon never possessed or warehoused an allegedly defective hoverboard. Instead, the ruling focused on the company's role in sales, payment, and fulfillment.
According to Trevino's attorneys, they do not know whether the products that injured their client were stored at an Amazon warehouse -- and it does not matter.
"California courts now hold online retailers such as Defendant Amazon liable for harmful products sold through their website," Robinson wrote. "See Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431, 438 ('Whatever term we use to describe Amazon's role, be it 'retailer,' 'distributor,' or merely 'facilitator,' it was pivotal in bringing the product here to the consumer.')"
