Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Amazon Might Be Liable Under Strict Products Liability
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Amazon, which bills itself as an “an online mall” which neither manufactures nor sells goods, is actually more like a retailer than a facilitator, the Court of Appeal for this district has held, rejecting the company’s bid for a repudiation of last year’s decision by the Fourth District’s Div. One that it is strictly liable for harm from defective products.
In the case decided by the Los Angeles-based panel on Monday, there was a reversal of a summary judgment by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ralph C. Hofer in favor of Amazon.com LLC. Appealing that decision was Kisha Loomis who purchased a hoverboard—a self-balancing transportation device with two motorized wheels—from TurnUpUp via the Amazon website, incurring injuries from flames that erupted when the product was plugged into an outlet.
A summary judgment in favor of Amazon was also reversed on Aug. 13, 2020, by a San Diego-based division in Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC. Justice Patricia Guerrero wrote that Angela Bolger—who was injured when a replacement battery sold over Amazon by Lenoge Technology exploded—argues that Amazon is strictly liable for defective products offered on its website by third-party sellers like Lenoge,” and said:
“In the circumstances of this case, we agree.”
Opinion by Ohta
Authoring Monday’s opinion was Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Sam Ohta, sitting on assignment. His opinion was joined in by Justice Maria E. Stratton, with Justice John Shepard Wiley writing a concurring opinion.
A difference between the opinions was that Guerrero said that strict products liability does apply, while Ohta said it “may” apply, pointing to triable issues of fact.
“Our own review of California law on strict products liability persuades us that Bolger was correctly decided and that strict liability may attach under the circumstances of this case,” Ohta wrote.
Ohta quoted 1996 opinion of the Fourth District’s Div. One in Bay Summit Community Assn. v. Shell Oil Co. as saying that strict liability exists, under a “stream of commerce” theory, where “(1) the defendant received a direct financial benefit from its activities and from the sale of the product; (2) the defendant’s role was integral to the business enterprise such that the defendant’s conduct was a necessary factor in bringing the product to the initial consumer market; and (3) the defendant had control over, or a substantial ability to influence, the manufacturing or distribution process.”
The jurist said:
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Loomis, there exists a triable issue of material fact as to each of the three factors identified above.”
Influence Over Manufacturer
With respect to Amazon’s ability to affect safety standards of manufacturers, Ohta said:
“[T]he record demonstrates Amazon had substantial ability to influence the manufacturing or distribution process through its ability to require safety certification, indemnification, and insurance before it agrees to list any product….Amazon’s contention that it has no relationship with the manufacturer or the distributors has no bearing on whether it can influence the manufacturing process.”
He noted that Amazon has taken some steps to promote product safety and commented:
“Application of strict liability in this case may incentivize Amazon to expand its safety compliance requirements to more products and thus further the goal of product safety.”
Wiley’s View
Wiley proceeded on the premise that Amazon does have control over manufacturers’ standards, saying in his concurring opinion:
“The Amazon is the world’s largest river. Amazon.com supposedly chose its trademark because it aimed to create the world’s largest river of commerce. Amazon.com can control what it created.
“Unbeknownst to Amazon, a manufacturer may use Amazon’s site to sell a defective product that will cause future accidents. Perhaps it is a computer battery that can explode….Perhaps it is a hoverboard that ignites fires.
“Whatever it is, Amazon is situated swiftly to learn of and to contain the emerging problem, thereby reducing accidental injuries. Amazon can cabin the danger by stopping sales. Amazon can alert past buyers who have yet to experience the lurking hazard: Amazon has information about its customers and their purchases. Other measures are possible.”
He added:
“Once Amazon is convinced it will be holding the bag on these accidents, this motivation will prompt it to engineer effective ways to minimize these accident costs. Tort law will inspire Amazon to align its ingenuity with efficient customer safety. Customers will benefit.”
In similar vein, Guerrero wrote:
“Just like a conventional retailer, Amazon can use its power as a gatekeeper between an upstream supplier and the consumer to exert pressure on those upstream suppliers (here, third-party sellers) to enhance safety. It therefore serves the purposes of the doctrine to impose strict liability on Amazon, by adding an extra incentive for Amazon to do so.”
In yesterday’s decision,
The case is Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC, 2021 S.O.S. 1688.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company