Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC (Apr. 26, 2021, B297995)
Plaintiff sued Amazon for strict liability and negligence after the hoverboard she purchased through Amazon.com caught fire. Amazon moved for summary judgment, arguing that the hoverboard was sold through Amazon by a third party, and that because Amazon was neither the manufacturer nor the seller, it could not be liable. The trial court granted summary judgment.
The Court of Appeal reversed, applying Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431, and finding that triable issues of fact exist as to whether Amazon should be liable. The court cited extensively to Bolger, which reached a similar result under almost identical facts. The court agreed that Amazon’s “ ‘pivotal’ ” role in delivering the products of third party sellers to customers justifies its exposure to product liability claims.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Wiley observed that the court’s holding is consistent with the emphasis in modern tort law on minimizing the social cost of accidents. He noted Amazon is so “well situated to take cost-effective measures to minimize the social costs of accidents” that this case was “easy” to decide.
