On November 25, 2024, in Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-01448, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215377, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (District Court) ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) could be liable for manufacturer-seller liability under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) for a defective product sold by a third-party seller through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program (FBA). The court also dismissed two tort claims against Amazon as follows: (i) Amazon does not qualify as a “seller” for purposes of non-manufacturer seller liability (because passing title is required for that claim); and (ii) there is insufficient evidence to prove the decedent, Archie Pickard (Pickard), relied on Amazon’s safety practices when purchasing the defective product, precluding a claim for negligent undertaking. Continue Reading
In June 2024, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that: (1) Amazon can be considered a “seller” of defective products sold by third parties on its website; and (2) Amazon can be liable under a theory of negligent undertaking for third-party products. In Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2023-CQ-01596, 2024 La. LEXIS 1112, a Louisiana man, Archie Pickard, died from burns sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger purchased on Amazon from a third-party seller located in China. Mr. Pickard’s family filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana alleging claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) and for negligent undertaking. Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment, which prompted the federal court to certify questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana regarding these two claims.
Amazon Can be a “Seller” Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act
Amazon does not neatly fit within the definition of “seller” under the LPLA because the LPLA was drafted in 1988, before the internet existed. The LPLA defines a “seller” as a person or entity (who is not the manufacturer) who conveys title or possession of the product to another for something of value. La R.S. 9.2800.53(s) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” because it conveyed “possession” of the charger to Mr. Pickard through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) program, which provides storage, delivery, customer service, and returns of third-party products sold on Amazon. Most products on Amazon are sold by third parties, rather than Amazon. Many third-party sellers are small or medium-size companies, and some are individuals seeking to make supplemental income. Amazon offers the FBA program to handle storage and logistics to third-party sellers. When a product is sold through the FBA program, the seller sends the product to Amazon’s warehouses, where it is stored until it is purchased. When an FBA-product is purchased, Amazon collects payment, delivers the product (often in an Amazon van), and handles the potential return of the product. The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” of the battery charger even though Amazon did not pass title to Mr. Pickard because: (1) Amazon had physical custody of the charger while stored in the warehouse; and (2) Amazon controlled the transaction and logistics through its FBA program.Continue Reading
A federal court in West Virginia recently ruled that a negligence claim could proceed against Amazon related to a spy camera used to take unsolicited photos of a teenage girl. M.S. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-0046, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213236 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 30, 2023). The negligence claim is specifically interesting for subrogation professionals as it potentially provides an additional avenue for recovery against Amazon in addition to a product liability claim.
In 2021, the plaintiff, M.S. (a minor), visited the United States as a foreign-exchange student. During her stay, she lived with Darrel Wells, a 55-year-old man. Mr. Wells purchased a spy camera that was disguised as a bathroom towel hook on Amazon. The camera was listed for sale by an unknown third party and satisfied through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program. The product description showed the camera serving as a towel hook with the caption: “It won’t attract any attention[:] A very ordinary hook,” as shown in the photo below from the pleading.Continue Reading
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island
- Subrogation
- Podcast
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- New York
- Contracts
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- Evidence
- Workers' Compensation
- Construction Defects
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Water Loss
- Malpractice
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Assignment
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Cargo - Transportation
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Limitation of Liability
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Experts - Reliability
- Experts – Daubert
- Made Whole
- CPSC Recalls
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Maryland
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- AIA Contracts
- Massachusetts
Tags
- Product Liability
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Rhode Island
- Products Liability
- Subrogation
- Podcast
- Texas
- Certificate of Merit
- Contracts
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Subro Sessions
- Louisiana
- Construction Defects
- Civil Procedure
- Landlord-Tenant
- Expert Qualifications
- Experts
- Negligence
- Evidence
- Statute of Repose
- Amazon
- Construction Contracts
- Amazon-eBay
- New York
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Sutton Doctrine
- Maryland
- Made Whole
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Georgia
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Illinois
- West Virginia
- Pennsylvania
- Negligent Undertaking
- Limitation of Liability
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Water Damage
- Statute of Limitations
- Arizona
- Warranty - Implied
- Florida
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Malpractice
- Negligence – Duty
- Independent Duty
- Ohio
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Settlement
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Connecticut
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Public Policy
- Unconscionable
- Apportionment
- Comparative Fault
- Missouri
- Parties
- Design Defect
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Architects-Engineers
- Lithium-ion battery
- Internet Sales
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Exculpatory Clause
- Gross Negligence
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Daubert
- Experts - Reliability
- Delaware
- Standing
- Improvement
- Third Party
- Accepted Work
- Montana
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Independent Contractor
- Privity
- Res Ipsa
- Workers’ Compensation
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- AIA Contract
- Condominiums
- Contracts - Formation
- Non-Party at Fault
- Massachusetts
Authors
Archives
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023