Whether Amazon can be held strictly liable for products sold by third parties through its website is a question courts often face. In Loomis v. Amazon.com, LLC, No. 297995, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 347 (Apr. 26, 2021), the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District (Second District), held that, under the circumstances, Amazon could be held strictly liable.
In this case, Kisha Loomis (Loomis), purchased a hoverboard on Amazon’s website from a seller identified as TurnUpUp in November of 2015. TurnUpUP was a name used by SMILETO, a company based in China, to sell its products on Amazon. Loomis communicated about the timing of the delivery through Amazon’s website and Forrinx Technology (USA) shipped the hoverboard to Loomis. On New Year’s Eve, Loomis’ son plugged the hoverboard in to an outlet in Loomis’ bedroom and later that night, Loomis’ boyfriend discovered a fire burning in the bedroom. Loomis suffered burns to her hand and foot as a result of fighting the fire.
Loomis’ amended Complaint included products liability claims against Amazon. Amazon moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that it did not fall within the chain of distribution for products liability purposes. The trial court granted Amazon’s motion, and Loomis appealed. On appeal, Loomis argued that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in Amazon’s favor on her strict and negligent product liability claims.
As it did in Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC, 53 Cal. App.5th 431 (4th Dist. 2020), Amazon argued, among other things, that it was merely a service provider. The Bolger court, like the Second District in Loomis, rejected Amazon’s argument. As noted by the Second District, the fact that Amazon did not hold title to the hoverboard nor have physical possession of it did not automatically render it solely a service provider and remove it from strict liability. The Second District found that, based on its review of Amazon’s third-party business model under its Business Solutions Agreement (BSA), “Amazon’s own business practices make it a direct link in the vertical chain of distribution under California’s strict liability doctrine.” As the court found, it was undisputed that Amazon placed itself between TurnUpUp, the seller, and Loomis, the buyer, in the transaction at issue. Among other things, Loomis purchased the hoverboard through Amazon’s website, she communicated her delivery concerns through Amazon and Amazon processed her payment and remitted it...
