Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that Amazon was not liable to a customer who allegedly suffered chemical burns after using beard balm he had purchased through the online retailer.

Tarian Walker purchased Honest Industries Beard Balm through Amazon.com. After using the product for several days, he suffered superficial chemical burns on his face, which may necessitate plastic surgery to correct his skin pigment. Walker filed suit against Amazon, Inc., alleging it was liable for forwarding the product without sufficient labeling and for modifying the product by removing packaging showing ingredients or warnings. The defendant moved to dismiss.

Granting the motion, the district court noted that although the plaintiff had not offered specific legal theories in his lawsuit, it would analyze the present motion using several theories the defendant had suggested, including strict liability marketing defect, negligence, and gross negligence.

To prove marketing defect, the court said, a plaintiff must show that there was a risk of harm inherent in the product or that may arise from its reasonably intended use; that the supplier knew or should have known of the risk of harm at the time the product was marketed; that there was a marketing defect; that there was a lack of warnings rendering the product unreasonably dangerous; and that this failure to warn led to the user’s injuries. Here, the court said, the plaintiff does not allege that Amazon knew of the alleged risk of harm, notwithstanding his allegation that the company had control over the beard balm and packaging.

Additionally, the court said the plaintiff failed to state a viable negligence claim. The plaintiff merely states the bare allegation that the defendant was a seller that owed a duty of care—a fact that Amazon disputes—and provides insufficient factual allegations showing that the defendant, even if considered a seller, had breached a duty of care. Specifically, the court said, the plaintiff did not plead facts alleging that Amazon knew or should have known the balm was dangerous.

Finally, citing case law, the court concluded that failing to plead negligence precludes the plaintiff’s assertion of a gross negligence claim as a matter of law.

Consequently, the court dismissed the case.

Citation: Walker v. Honest Indus., Inc., 2021 WL 394830 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2021).