Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that Amazon.com may be liable to a consumer under a negligent undertaking theory.

Joshua Johnson purchased a non-slip bathmat on the Amazon.com online marketplace. Nine months after buying the mat, which was manufactured by Chinese corporation Comuster, Johnson used the product in the shower. The mat shifted, causing him to fall and suffer a severe cut on his right arm. He required surgery and was hospitalized for three days and now has significant scarring.

Johnson sued the manufacturer and Amazon.com, Inc. The plaintiff alleged claims for negligence, breach of implied and express warranties, and negligent undertaking against Amazon.com. The defense moved to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff had not stated a viable negligent undertaking claim under Texas law. The defendant argued that it had not assumed a duty regarding Johnson and the bathmat and that even if it had, the plaintiff failed to allege that the company had increased his risk of harm or made an express promise on which he had detrimentally relied.

Denying the motion, the district court found that to plead a negligent undertaking claim under Texas law, the plaintiff must show that Amazon had undertaken to perform services that it knew or should have known were necessary for the plaintiff’s protection and had failed to exercise reasonable care in performing those services. The plaintiff also must show that he either relied on Amazon’s performance or that the company’s performance increased his risk of harm. Citing case law, the court added that the plaintiff establishes that a defendant undertook a duty by alleging an affirmative course of conduct necessary for the plaintiff’s protection or an express promise to act in the future for the plaintiff’s protection.

Applying these principles, the court concluded that Amazon’s product safety program constituted an undertaking. In its 2019 website statements, the court said, Amazon asserted that it takes safety measures beginning when a seller attempts to open an account. Such steps include vetting the customer, ensuring compliance with company policies, searching for products that might present a concern, and scanning changes to product detail pages, the court said. The court rejected Amazon’s assertion that the statements constituted promotional material, finding that the statements went beyond promoting Amazon as a safe company by describing the processes through which the company vets sellers and their products.

The court also found that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that he had relied on Amazon’s undertaking. The plaintiff alleged he relied on Amazon’s statements when purchasing the bathmat and made the purchase because he believed Amazon was a safe and reliable marketplace.

Consequently, the court concluded that dismissal was not warranted.

Citation: Johnson v. Amazon.com, 2024 WL 1392551 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Alma Reyes-Tavares, Cesar Tavares, and Michael Samaniego, all of Houston.