Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that Amazon may be liable to homeowners who experienced a house fire allegedly resulting from their son’s hoverboard, which was left charging while the family was out.

Helen Walter purchased a hoverboard as a Christmas gift for her grandson. The hoverboard, which was purchased on Amazon.com, was fulfilled by Cool5Pix. The grandson left the hoverboard plugged in while family was out, and a fire erupted, completely destroying their home. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and the grandson’s parents sued Amazon.com, Inc., alleging liability for the damage. The plaintiffs alleged negligence, strict products liability, negligent failure to warn, common law strict liability, assumed duty to warn, and duty premised on a special relationship. The defense moved for summary judgment.

Granting in part and denying in part, the court found that under The Restatement (Second) of Torts §324A, one who undertakes to render services to another, which is necessary for the protection of a third person, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from the failure to exercise reasonable care provided the failure increases the risk of harm, the person has undertaken to perform a duty owed to the third party, and there has been a reliance on the undertaking. Here, the court found, there is a fact issue about whether Walter had received a December 2015 email Amazon had sent discussing news reports of safety issues associated with products containing rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and offering links to additional information. If Walter had received the email, the court said, a fact issue remains regarding whether Amazon had failed to exercise reasonable care to protect hoverboard buyers or failed to include specific information in the email. Therefore, the court held that summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ assumed-duty-to-warn claim was not warranted.

Nevertheless, the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. The court reasoned that Amazon had not sold or manufactured the hoverboard at issue and did not distribute or sell the hoverboard or write any instructions for it. Cool5Pix was responsible for sourcing the hoverboard, held title to it, set the price, and offered any warranty accompanying the product, the court said, concluding that Amazon was therefore not a seller for strict liability purposes.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to show that Amazon owed them a duty or that it had acted negligently in relation to a service it provided. Additionally, the court declined to treat Amazon as a supplier of the hoverboard, noting that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the company had actual control or possession over a supposedly dangerous chattel. The court rejected the argument that the company was in a special relationship with Cool5Pix, which controls where its products are sourced and what warnings are included with them.

Citation: State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Amazon.com, 2021 WL 1124787 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2021).

Plaintiff counsel: Alessandro Sabatino Jr., New York City; and David G. Richardson and Samuel A. Gradwohl, both of Cincinnati.