Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

liabilitymotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

plaintiffdefendantliabilitymotionsummary judgmentcommon lawmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

McMillan v. Amazon.com, Inc., 433 F.Supp.3d 1034

Facts

Morgan McMillan purchased a generic Apple TV remote from Amazon, listed by a third-party vendor, Hu Xi Jie. The remote's battery compartment opened easily, exposing a lithium button battery. McMillan's 19-month-old daughter ingested the battery, which became lodged in her esophagus, causing severe and permanent damage. After the incident, McMillan notified Amazon, which removed the product from its marketplace and suspended the vendor's account.

On April 17, 2018, the Remote's battery compartment opened and exposed the button battery. Plaintiff's 19-month-old daughter, E.G., ingested the battery, which became lodged in E.G.'s esophagus.

Issue

Whether Amazon can be held liable as a 'seller' under Texas law for the defects in the remote control and whether the Communications Decency Act protects it from liability for failing to provide warnings.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on all claims because it argues that it is not a seller of the Remote.

Rule

Under Texas law, a 'seller' is defined as a person engaged in the business of distributing or placing a product in the stream of commerce. The Communications Decency Act provides immunity to internet service providers from liability for third-party content.

Texas law states that a nonmanufacturing seller of a product is not liable for harm caused by the product.

Analysis

The court determined that Amazon was a 'seller' because it was integrally involved in the sale of the remote, exerting control over the transaction and facilitating the delivery of the product. However, the court also found that Amazon's role as a publisher of the product detail page fell under the protections of the Communications Decency Act, which barred liability for failing to provide warnings.

The Court first turns to the definition of “seller.” To support its claim that it is not a seller, Defendant cites to the common law definition of seller, ordinary meaning of the word “sell,” and the definitions of “sale” under Black's Law Dictionary and Texas Business and Commercial Code.

Conclusion

The court denied Amazon's motion for summary judgment regarding its status as a seller but granted it concerning the failure to provide warnings under the Communications Decency Act.

Accordingly, because Defendant is a “seller” under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.003, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to products liability is DENIED.

Who won?

Amazon prevailed in part because the court ruled that it could not be held liable for failing to provide warnings due to the protections of the Communications Decency Act.

Defendant additionally argues that it is not a seller because it never took title to the Remote.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Rich v. Taser Intern., Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 1080281

Smith v. Linn, 386 Pa.Super. 392, 563 A.2d 123, 16 Media L. Rep. 2228

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45, 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1664, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,067, 57 USLW 4677

Fontaine v. Roman Catholic Church of Archdiocese of New Orleans, 625 So.2d 548

Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal.3d 916, 616 P.2d 813, 167 Cal.Rptr. 831, 16 A.L.R.4th 518