A high-voltage lithium-ion battery does not burn the way a tank of gasoline does. When a crash damages a battery pack and it goes into “thermal runaway,” the fire can be hotter, harder to put out, and can reignite hours later — sometimes turning a collision people should have walked away from into a burn emergency. As more cars, trucks, and semis on the road carry these packs, that failure mode is becoming a catastrophic-injury question of its own: not just who caused the crash, but who is responsible for the fire.
In August 2024, a Tesla Semi left Interstate 80 near Emigrant Gap, California, struck a post and a tree, and came to rest on an embankment. The driver got out. The truck’s lithium-ion battery pack then ignited, and the fire was so stubborn that, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, crews used roughly 50,000 gallons of water and the freeway stayed closed for about 15 hours while the batteries were cooled enough to move the wreck. The NTSB opened its first investigation of an electric truck crash to study exactly that: not the impact, but the fire that followed it. Through 2026, first responders have seen the same behavior in other lithium-ion incidents on the interstate system — battery loads on I-70 that closed the highway and had to be neutralized before the road could reopen.
These events point to a failure mode that is still poorly understood by the people it hurts. When a crash damages a high-voltage battery, the danger does not always end with the collision. It can begin there. For a catastrophic-injury case, that changes the central question. The old question was simple: who caused the crash? The newer question sits alongside it: once the crash happened, whose choices — in how the vehicle was built and how the emergency was handled — decided whether an occupant escaped or was burned?
It is important to be accurate here, because fear sells and accuracy matters more. The available data does not show that electric vehicles catch fire more often than gasoline cars — if anything, per mile driven, EV fires appear to be less frequent, and a large share of fires in conventional vehicles trace to the engine and fuel system. So the honest concern is not frequency. It is behavior. A lithium-ion pack that does ignite behaves in ways a gasoline fire does not, and those differences are what produce catastrophic injuries.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Battery Safety Initiative frames the core hazards plainly: after a crash, high-voltage components should be assumed energized, battery vapors are potentially toxic and flammable, and physical damage can cause a delayed release of toxic and flammable gases and fire. In other words, a battery pack can look intact and quiet at the roadside and still be building toward failure. That delay is the part that catches people — occupants, bystanders, and the firefighters who arrive expecting an ordinary car fire.
Thermal runaway is an uncontrolled, self-feeding rise in a battery cell’s temperature and pressure. A crash can crush, puncture, or short a cell; that cell overheats, which heats the cells next to it, which fail in turn — a chain reaction that releases intense heat, flammable gases, and fire. In its safety report Safety Risks to Emergency Responders from Lithium-Ion Battery Fires in Electric Vehicles (NTSB/SR-20/01), the National Transportation Safety Board identified three features that make these fires uniquely dangerous long after the impact.
Reignition. The NTSB found that lithium-ion packs can reignite after the initial fire appears to be out — minutes, hours, or even days later. Stranded energy. A damaged pack retains stored electrical energy that ordinary firefighting cannot safely discharge, which is why crews now sometimes submerge or treat damaged packs in a salt-water solution to bleed off that charge. High-voltage shock. The report warned that crash damage and fire may block access to the vehicle’s high-voltage disconnects, leaving responders exposed to electrocution, and that manufacturer emergency response guides too often lacked the vehicle-specific detail needed to fight the fire safely. It is worth noting a regulatory response: beginning January 1, 2026, NHTSA requires manufacturers to submit standardized emergency response guides for electric vehicles — a direct attempt to close the information gap the NTSB flagged.
A post-crash fire injures the body in two ways at once, and both matter to a case. The first is the burn itself, which is measured not by how it looks but by its depth and by the percentage of total body surface area it covers — the figures that drive whether a person needs grafting, faces months of reconstructive surgery, or is left with permanent disability. The second is inhalation injury: breathing the superheated, chemically loaded gases a lithium-ion fire produces can scald and inflame the airway and lungs, an injury that may not be visible from outside and can worsen in the hours after rescue.
A fire that also traps an occupant compounds everything — delayed extrication means longer exposure, and the crush or orthopedic injuries from the crash are layered on top of the burns. Characterizing that combined picture accurately is clinical work, and at The Alvarez Law Firm it is done by Herb Borroto, M.D., J.D., the firm’s medical-legal expert. Reading the burn depth and surface area, identifying the inhalation component, and tying the injury pattern to the fire’s known behavior is also the answer to the defense’s instinct to minimize — and it connects directly to the enhanced-injury analysis we describe in our explainer on the crashworthiness doctrine and the “second collision.”
There are usually two distinct tracks, and a case can involve one or both. The first is ordinary negligence: the driver or company that caused the underlying crash is generally responsible for the harm that foreseeably flowed from it, and a fire is a foreseeable consequence of a violent collision. Under long-standing tort principles, a negligent party takes the victim and the situation as they find them; the fact that the harm arrived through fire rather than blunt force does not, by itself, break the chain of causation.
The second track is product liability, and it is where the newer technology matters. If a battery pack, its housing, or its safety systems were defectively designed or manufactured — so that a crash a well-designed vehicle should have contained instead produced an uncontained fire — the vehicle or battery maker may be responsible for the enhanced injury. This is the crashworthiness idea applied to fire: the law does not require a car to be uncrashable, but it can require that a foreseeable crash not be made needlessly deadly by the vehicle’s own design. Building that theory means proving what a safer, feasible design would have done differently, and it is the legal work of Alex Alvarez, Managing Partner and a Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer (The Florida Bar), who pairs the engineering and fire-origin evidence with the medicine so that neither the crash-causer nor a defective manufacturer can point at an empty chair. Which parties are actually responsible turns on the evidence of what caused the crash and, separately, what caused the fire — not on assumptions about either.
The single most important piece of evidence in a battery-fire case is often the vehicle itself — and it is the piece most likely to disappear. A burned-out EV is treated as a hazardous, reignition-prone object; it is hauled to a tow yard, quarantined, sometimes submerged, and can be released for scrapping before an injured family knows it holds the answers. Yet the pack, the battery management system data, the vehicle’s event data recorder, and the physical fire-origin patterns are what an engineer needs to determine whether the fire was an unavoidable result of a severe crash or the product of a defect.
That is why the response has to be fast. Prompt legal notice to preserve the vehicle, the data, and the fire and rescue records — before the wreck is destroyed and before telematics are overwritten — is frequently what makes a product claim provable at all. We describe that race against the clock in our guide to the first 24 hours after a crash, when the evidence disappears fast. The same evidence-first instinct runs through the firm’s work across catastrophic auto crashes and catastrophic truck crashes alike, where the vehicle and its data are the case.
The broader point for anyone hurt in a vehicle fire is this: a survivable crash that becomes a burn injury — or a death — is not automatically just “a bad accident.” It may be the crash-causer’s responsibility, the manufacturer’s, or both, and those questions can be answered with the right evidence preserved in time. Where a fire takes a life, the family may have a claim of its own, as we explain in our overview of wrongful death; where it costs a limb, the analysis overlaps with our work on amputation and limb loss. This article is general information about a category of injury claim, not legal or medical advice about any specific case. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes, and every case is evaluated on its own facts.
No. Available data indicates that electric vehicles catch fire less often per mile driven than gasoline cars, and that fires in conventional vehicles are frequently linked to the engine and fuel system. The catastrophic-injury concern is not how often a lithium-ion battery ignites but how it burns when it does. A high-voltage pack in thermal runaway can burn far hotter, reignite hours or days after the flames are knocked down, hold dangerous stranded electrical energy, and release toxic gases — which is why a post-crash battery fire can turn a survivable collision into a life-threatening emergency.
Thermal runaway is an uncontrolled, self-sustaining rise in a battery cell’s temperature and pressure. When a crash damages a high-voltage pack, a single failing cell can heat its neighbors until they fail in a chain reaction, generating intense heat, flammable and toxic gases, and fire that ordinary water application struggles to cool. The National Transportation Safety Board has warned that these fires can reignite after they appear extinguished and that damaged packs retain “stranded energy,” making them unpredictable and dangerous long after the crash itself is over.
There can be more than one responsible party. The driver or company that negligently caused the underlying crash is ordinarily responsible for the harm that foreseeably followed, and a post-crash fire is a foreseeable consequence of a serious collision. Separately, if a battery pack or its safeguards were defectively designed or built so that a survivable crash became unsurvivable because of fire, the vehicle or battery manufacturer may face a product-liability or crashworthiness claim. Which parties are responsible depends on the evidence of what caused the crash and what caused the fire, not on assumptions.
Because the severity is often disputed and the mechanism matters. Burn injuries are measured by depth and by the percentage of total body surface area involved, and inhaling the hot, toxic gases a lithium-ion fire produces can cause airway and lung injury that is not visible from the outside. Reading the burn depth, the inhalation component, and the timeline of care, and tying them to the fire’s behavior, is clinical work. At The Alvarez Law Firm, that read is done by Herb Borroto, M.D., J.D., the firm’s medical-legal expert, so the injury is documented accurately rather than minimized.
The crashworthiness doctrine — when a survivable crash is made catastrophic by the vehicle itself.
Why the vehicle, the data, and the fire records have to be preserved immediately.
How liability shifts toward the manufacturer as vehicle technology takes over the driving.
Heavy-vehicle crashes — including the electric semis now carrying large battery packs.
When a fire or crash costs a limb, the medical and legal work has to move together.
When a post-crash fire takes a life, the law recognizes a claim for the family.
A survivable crash that became a fire raises two questions — who caused the crash, and whether a defect made the fire worse. Herb Borroto, M.D., J.D., reads the burn and inhalation injury; Alex Alvarez builds the liability and preserves the vehicle before it is destroyed. Move quickly. Free, confidential.
Free, confidential case review. We respond within 24 hours.
No fees unless we recover compensation for you.
Your information is confidential. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship.
What Happens Next
If your information appears to qualify you for help, a lawyer or someone from their team will reach out to you. If you don't hear back within seven days, please speak with another law firm — every legal matter has a filing deadline, and waiting too long can cost you the right to recover.
