A recent lawsuit against Amazon sheds light on a potential new avenue for holding the online giant accountable for defective products. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas determined Amazon can be held responsible for injuries caused by faulty products sold on its platform, even if Amazon was not the direct seller. The case, Johnson v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4:22-CV-04086, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59196, opens the door for further lawsuits against Amazon for failing to ensure the safety of the products sold on its website. Fee, Smith & Sharp LLP is experienced in product liability and negligence cases and is prepared to help clients navigate this new claim.
Johnson V. Amazon.com, Inc.
The case, Johnson v. Amazon.com, Inc., involved a bathmat purchased on Amazon that caused the plaintiff, Joshua Johnson, to fall and sustain serious injuries. While Amazon argued it was not liable because it was not the seller, the court disagreed. The defective bathmat was manufactured and sold by a Chinese company named Comuster through Amazon.com.
Joshua Johnson suffered a severe injury when, nine months after purchasing the bathmat, it unexpectedly shifted while he was showering, causing him to lose his balance and fall. The fall resulted in a deep cut on Johnson’s arm that required surgery to repair the wound, leaving him with significant scarring as a lasting reminder of the incident. The bathmat’s design or manufacturing flaw and its unexpected movement created a hazardous situation that directly contributed to Johnson’s injuries.
Johnson filed a lawsuit against both Amazon and Comuster, alleging that the defective bathmat sold by Comuster had caused his injuries. Amazon, however, argued that Texas law did not hold it responsible as a seller since it was merely an online marketplace. In response, Johnson changed his legal strategy. He dropped the claim against Amazon for strict product liability and instead accused Amazon of negligence. Specifically, he argued that Amazon had failed in its duty to ensure the safety of products sold on its platform. Amazon then countered that Johnson had not provided enough evidence to support this claim.
Amazon Negligence Claims
The argument hinges on Amazon’s responsibility to its customers to ensure product safety on its platform. Johnson pointed to Amazon’s website statements about investing heavily in safety measures to protect its customers and removing unsafe products, arguing that Amazon had committed to product safety. He cited a 2019 announcement in which Amazon detailed a $400 million investment in product safety and compliance.
Additionally, he referenced Amazon’s customer service page, which outlined the company’s efforts to investigate and address safety concerns reported by customers. Amazon claimed these statements were just promotional, but the court found these details went beyond mere advertising and demonstrated a concrete undertaking that the company had established specific procedures to evaluate their sellers and products.
These procedures include:
- Upfront checks: Sellers undergo a verification process that utilizes proprietary technology to identify and block potential bad actors before they can list products.
- Continuous monitoring: Amazon employs sophisticated tools to scan its massive product listings every few minutes. These tools review millions of daily product changes, verify customer reviews, and identify potential safety concerns.
- Compliance focus: All Amazon products must comply with relevant laws, regulations, and Amazon’s safety policies.
- Reporting and removal: Amazon provides multiple channels for reporting safety issues. When concerns arise, they swiftly remove unsafe products from their platform.
Negligence Under Texas Law
Texas law sets a high bar for anyone suing for negligence related to product liability. To go up against Amazon, the plaintiff must prove four key elements:
- Duty of Care: The plaintiff must demonstrate that Amazon voluntarily assumed the responsibility of protecting their safety. They must show Amazon went beyond its role as a mere marketplace and actively took steps to ensure the safety of products sold on its platform.
- Breach of Duty: The plaintiff must show that Amazon failed to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling its safety obligations by failing to vet sellers properly, inspect products, or warn consumers about potential hazards.
- Causation: The plaintiff must establish a direct link between Amazon’s negligence and their injury. This involves proving that Amazon’s actions or omissions were a substantial factor in causing the harm.
- Damages: The plaintiff must prove they suffered actual harm or injury due to Amazon’s negligence, including both physical injuries and financial losses. Damages can encompass medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and emotional distress.
In Johnson’s case, Amazon argued that the evidence was insufficient to meet these requirements. Specifically, Amazon claimed that Johnson had not shown that Amazon had explicitly promised to protect him from defective products. Additionally, Amazon contended that Johnson had not adequately proven that Amazon’s actions or omissions had directly led to his injury.
Final Decisions of the Court
The case focused on whether Amazon’s actions matched its promises. Johnson claimed he relied on Amazon’s safety measures when buying the bathmat, choosing it precisely because it was sold on Amazon. He claimed to be well-informed about Amazon’s vetting processes and pointed to specific safety-related statements from the company.
Based on the evidence, the court determined that Amazon’s product safety initiatives were sufficient to establish a perceived commitment to safety, influencing Johnson’s decision to purchase the bathmat from Amazon. As a result, the court ruled that Johnson could proceed with his negligence claim against Amazon. This case could set a precedent for future lawsuits against Amazon, mainly when the company might not be considered a traditional seller under state law.
This case demonstrates the potential for holding Amazon accountable beyond its traditional seller role. This ruling may impact future negligence cases, yielding additional decisions that could benefit other consumers injured by faulty products from third-party vendors on Amazon.
Learn More and Get Legal Representation
Contact Fee, Smith & Sharp today with your questions regarding this case and how any further developments may impact you. We are ready and willing to represent your case.