Nesco Pressure Cooker Lawsuit

The Metal Ware Corporation, which operates under the Nesco name, has been named in separate lawsuits alleging injuries associated with pressure cooker lid releases.

The allegations concern similar safety questions, but the cases involve different plaintiffs and incidents.

Neither filing establishes that all Nesco pressure cookers contain a defect.

August 2026: Gatewood v. Metal Ware Corporation

Phillip Gatewood filed a lawsuit against Metal Ware Corporation in Iowa state court on August 5, 2026.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on August 25, 2026, under Case No. 4:26-cv-00353.

The federal docket identifies the action as a personal injury product liability case.

Gatewood was cooking tomatoes in his Nesco appliance using the Slow Cook function, rather than pressure-cooking mode.

He reportedly checked and stirred the tomatoes the next morning, replaced the lid, and resumed slow cooking.

When he later returned to open the cooker, the lid allegedly blew off, ejecting boiling tomato juice and other contents throughout the kitchen and onto his body.

Gatewood alleges that the appliance accumulated internal pressure without adequately warning him and that its design and instructions failed to protect against the resulting hazard.

The reported claims concern negligent product design or manufacture, product liability, and inadequate warnings.

He seeks compensation for injuries and associated losses, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, impaired bodily function, and lost income.

Whether those alleged injuries were caused by a product defect remains a question for the litigation.

These are the plaintiff’s allegations.

The exact Nesco model involved has not been independently confirmed from the records reviewed, and the filing does not establish that the manufacturer is liable.

September 2022: Bice v. The Metal Ware Corporation

An earlier Nesco pressure cooker lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on September 6, 2022.

In Bice v. The Metal Ware Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-12095, Kassandra Jean Bice alleged that she was injured when she could remove the lid from a Nesco pressure cooker despite pressure, heat, and steam remaining inside.

Bice’s original complaint included negligence, strict liability, and breach-of-warranty claims.

In an October 23, 2023, court opinion, the judge permitted Bice to amend the complaint, including removing the original strict-liability count and clarifying her negligence and warranty theories.

That decision concerned the pleadings, not whether the cooker was defective.

The court record also reflects a dispute over the absence of the appliance itself.

Nesco argued that the cooker had been discarded, raising evidentiary concerns.

A later June 2024 order directed the parties to attend mediation.

A final outcome was not verified in the available materials.

Nesco has sold several electric pressure cookers and multi-function appliances.

Its official owner’s manual library identifies products including the PC4-14, PC6-14, PC6-13, PC6-25, PC8-25, and PC11-25 digital pressure cookers.

Nesco also sells the NPC-9 9.5-quart Digital Smart Canner & Cooker, which provides pressure-cooking and slow-cooking functions.

The NPC-9 product description advertises a safety-locking lid, an automatic float valve, and pressure-control features.

Other models may use different controls or locking arrangements.

These are examples of Nesco products, not a list of recalled or proven defective models.

The model numbers involved in the Gatewood and Bice lawsuits have not been confirmed from the materials reviewed.

Consumers should not assume that an appliance is implicated in either lawsuit solely because it appears in Nesco’s product catalog.

After an incident, record the complete product name, model number, identifying label, and approximate purchase date.

Save the manual supplied with that particular cooker, because instructions and features can differ between models and production periods.

The August 2026 lawsuit raises a question about what happens when a multi-function pressure cooker operates on a setting intended for slow cooking.

A conventional slow cooker does not depend on the elevated internal pressure used by a pressure cooker.

A multi-function appliance, however, may use the same locking lid and adjustable venting components for both settings.

Some Instant Pot and Crock-Pot multi-cookers also combine pressure cooking with slow cooking, but their controls and instructions should not be assumed to match those of Nesco products.

During pressure cooking, steam pressure raises the boiling point of water above its temperature in an open pot.

An obstructed or incorrectly positioned vent may prevent steam from escaping, allowing pressure inside the cooker to rise during a cooking process intended to operate without significant pressure.

A person approaching the appliance may not realize that built-up pressure remains inside.

Nesco’s own manuals show that the position of the pressure regulator is important during slow cooking.

The NPC-9 Smart Canner & Cooker manual directs users to close the lid and set the regulator to exhaust during the Slow Cook cycle so pressure does not accumulate.

The PC4-14 and PC6-14 instruction manual similarly instructs users to turn the regulator to VENT for slow cooking.

There is also a discrepancy worth distinguishing from the allegations in either lawsuit: the PC4-14/PC6-14 manual’s operating instructions specify VENT, but a meatloaf recipe in the same published manual directs the user to set the regulator to SEAL and program the cooker for Slow Cook.

Conflicting directions in a manual could be relevant when examining what instructions a consumer received.

They do not, by themselves, prove a product defect or establish what happened in either reported injury.

An investigation into unexpected pressurization may address whether the vent was correctly positioned, whether it became obstructed, how the appliance indicated remaining pressure, and whether the lid could release before conditions inside were safe.

These questions require information about the particular product and incident rather than assumptions about every Nesco cooker.

The documented lawsuits concern the risk of a pressure cooker lid opening or releasing while hot contents remain under pressure.

Determining the cause requires examining the product as it existed at the time of the incident.

Potential issues involving an allegedly defective pressure cooker include:

• Lid-locking systems: Whether the lid could turn, lift, or detach despite dangerous residual pressure.
• Pressure indication: Whether an indicator or float valve accurately showed that pressure remained inside.
• Steam-release components: Whether the regulator and vent operated as intended or could become obstructed during foreseeable cooking conditions.
• Gaskets and seals: Whether defective gaskets, damaged seals, or an improperly fitted component affected the way pressure was contained or released.
• Instructions and warnings: Whether users received sufficiently clear directions for Slow Cook mode, vent settings, and safe lid removal.
• Design or manufacturing problems: Whether a specific component or safety mechanism failed despite proper assembly and normal use.

Modern pressure cookers may incorporate lid locks, pressure indicators, steam-release valves, and other built-in safety features, although the specific protections vary by model.

An investigation may examine whether a pressure cooker fails to vent excess pressure under foreseeable conditions or allows the lid to open before the chamber is safe.

A hot-content release does not, by itself, establish which component failed or whether a defect existed.

Those questions require product-specific evidence.

Why an Unexpected Lid Release Can Cause Serious Burns

Pressure cooking heats liquid inside an enclosed vessel.

If a pressure cooker explodes or its lid releases before the chamber has depressurized, hot food, steam, and liquid may surge outward, causing severe burns to the person opening it or anyone nearby.

An exploding pressure cooker can present serious risks even without a rupture of the metal cooking vessel, because scalding contents may escape through an opened or detached lid.

Thick foods and sauces can remain against the skin or clothing, extending exposure to heat.

Potential pressure cooker burn injuries include second-degree burns (partial-thickness injuries), third-degree burns (full-thickness injuries), eye injuries, infection, and permanent scarring.

These severe injuries may require hospitalization, wound care, skin grafting, physical therapy, and treatment for lasting disfigurement.

There is no single average hospital stay that reliably predicts recovery after a pressure cooker burn, because the required treatment depends on the depth and extent of the burns and any complications.

No CPSC recall specifically covering Nesco-branded pressure cookers was identified in available federal recall records.

The existence of lawsuits does not mean the product has been recalled, and the absence of a recall does not resolve whether a particular cooker was defective.

Other manufacturers have recalled defective pressure cookers after reports of sudden releases of hot contents, including incidents involving electric and stovetop pressure cookers.

The relevant models, reported injuries, and official recall dates are summarized in the FAQ below.

Those recalls do not apply to Nesco products and do not establish that Nesco appliances share the same defects.

Relevant considerations include:

• Whether the appliance was a Nesco pressure cooker or multi-function cooker.
• What cooking setting was selected and how the lid and pressure regulator were positioned.
• Whether the lid opened, detached, or released suddenly, or hot contents were ejected unexpectedly.
• Whether the incident caused burns or other injuries requiring medical treatment.
• Whether the cooker and related evidence are available for inspection, and whether the claim is within the applicable state filing deadline.

A person may still request a consultation without knowing the exact model number or mechanical cause.

A product liability lawyer can evaluate available evidence and explain the legal rights that may apply under the relevant state’s law.

The identified Nesco cases involve individual claims; their existence does not establish that class action lawsuits have been filed over these appliances.

Seek prompt medical attention if you suffer burns from hot liquid, food, or steam.

Serious burns can require professional treatment even when the initial appearance does not show their full depth.

Follow medical instructions and retain records of emergency care, follow-up visits, medications, wound treatment, and any surgery.

Once immediate safety and medical needs have been addressed, take the following steps when possible:

1. Stop using the appliance: Do not attempt another cooking cycle to reproduce the incident.
2. Preserve the cooker and its parts: Keep the lid, gasket, valve, inner pot, and any broken components in their post-incident condition. Do not clean, repair, modify, or return the appliance before seeking legal advice.
3. Photograph the scene and product: Include the lid, cooker controls, model label, spilled contents, damaged kitchen surfaces, and the visible condition of the appliance.
4. Document your injuries: Save photographs taken during healing, medical records, bills, and evidence of lost wages or time missed from work.
5. Keep purchase and use information: Save the receipt or online order, product packaging, original manual, and a written account of which setting was in use and what happened.
6. Preserve communications: Retain emails, messages, warranty requests, or other correspondence with Nesco, a retailer, or an insurer.

The cooker itself may be especially important.

In the earlier Bice litigation, the manufacturer disputed the significance of the appliance no longer being available.

A case involving alleged mechanical defects may become harder to evaluate when the original product cannot be examined.

A product liability investigation may involve physical and documentary evidence, including inspection of the cooker, review of its manual and warnings, photographs, purchase records, witness accounts, and medical documentation.

The evidence should address both what caused the contents to escape and how the resulting exposure injured the claimant.

Medical records and photographs may document the injuries sustained, including injuries caused by escaping steam or hot food.

Depending on state law and the facts, potential damages may include medical expenses, future treatment costs, lost wages, reduced earning capacity, pain and suffering, mental anguish, scarring, disfigurement, and other compensable losses.

Financial compensation may be available through a negotiated settlement or jury award if the claimant establishes liability and recoverable damages.

Severe burn cases may also require evidence concerning continuing care, permanent limitations, or the impact of visible scars.

No single pressure cooker settlement amount applies to all Nesco claims, and no jury award can be promised.

The value of a case depends on the strength of the liability evidence, the extent of the injuries, the available defendants and insurance coverage, and the relevant state law.

Filing deadlines differ by jurisdiction, and some circumstances can affect the time available to bring a claim.

TorHoerman Law is reviewing potential claims involving Nesco pressure cookers and other allegedly defective pressure cookers.

Our law firm evaluates whether product failures, inadequate warnings, or unsafe designs may have contributed to serious burn injuries.

A case review may address the product involved, the circumstances of the incident, the availability of the appliance for inspection, and the medical and financial consequences of the injury.

Serious cases may require technical investigation and review of the manufacturer’s instructions or safety mechanisms.

If you or a loved one suffered burns after a Nesco pressure cooker released its lid or scalding contents, contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.

You can also use the chat feature on this page to describe the incident and request a review of your legal options.