Johnson vs. Amazon, Inc
Amazon is the largest distributor of products in the U.S., but holding the company accountable for its products has proven tricky. Amazon has argued that, instead of being a retailer, it’s a marketplace and not subject to strict product liability rules. In other words, you can’t sue Amazon for product liability when one of the company’s products causes serious injury. At least—that’s what Amazon wants the courts to believe. In some states, this argument has worked. In other states, like California and Texas, the argument has failed, and the court ruled that Amazon can be held liable for defective products. In one pivotal case, Johnson vs. Amazon.com, Inc., the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff against Amazon. In this article, we’ll take a look at the case.
Analyzing the background of Johnson vs. Amazon.com, Inc.
According to the lawsuit, Joshua Johnson purchased a non-slip bathmat from a third-party seller on Amazon’s marketplace. Johnson suffered a serious injury when the bathmat “shifted” during use, causing him to fall. Johnson subsequently sued Amazon, initially arguing that Amazon was strictly liable for his injuries, but later changing his complaint to allege negligent undertaking based on Amazon’s stated claims regarding the safety of its products. Amazon argued that Johnson “did not rely” on their statements.
The question then became: Can Amazon be held liable for “negligent undertaking” under Texas law for injuries caused by an allegedly defective product sold by a third party if the company makes public assurances regarding the safety of its products and the consumer relies on these statements?
In this case, the Texas court denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss the negligent undertaking claim, finding that Amazon could be held liable for defective products from third-party sellers based on negligent undertaking.
Understanding “negligent undertaking”
A negligent undertaking claim requires the plaintiff to establish that Amazon took measures necessary for the plaintiff’s protection, but failed to exercise reasonable care in performing them, which led to the plaintiff relying on Amazon’s assurances, which increases the plaintiff’s risk of harm. Essentially, Johnson argued that Amazon’s public statements concerning the safety of its products, the removal of unsafe products, and a $400 million investment in product safety, plus specific measures for vetting sellers and monitoring listings, constituted “an undertaking.”
While Amazon argued that the consumer “didn’t rely” on these statements, the court found that the plaintiff adequately pleaded that he relied on the statements and was familiar with Amazon’s procedures, choosing the bathmat because it was sold on Amazon. As such, the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to proceed with the claim of negligent undertaking.
This decision made Amazon potentially liable for defective products from third-party sellers when Amazon isn’t considered the “direct seller”. Since Amazon made public statements regarding the safety of their products, consumers rely on those pledges to make decisions. This renders them more susceptible to injury.
Talk to a Florida Product Liability Lawyer Today
If you’ve been injured due to a defective Amazon product, call the Florida personal injury lawyers at Halpern, Santos & Pinkert to schedule an appointment, and we can begin investigating your case immediately.
Source:
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txsdce/4:2022cv04086/1897191/33/
