387 So.3d 515
La.2024Background
- Archie Pickard died following a fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger purchased from a third-party seller (Jisell) via Amazon.com.
- Jisell used Amazon’s “Fulfillment by Amazon” program, storing its product in Amazon’s warehouse; Amazon managed listing, payment, and product delivery but did not hold title to the product.
- Pickard’s survivors sued Amazon in federal court, alleging liability under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) and for negligent undertaking.
- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana certified two questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court regarding Amazon’s status as a “seller” under the LPLA and potential negligent undertaking liability.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court answered both questions, focusing on statutory interpretation and existing tort law principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amazon is a “seller” under the LPLA, despite not holding title but having physical custody and control over transaction/delivery | Amazon's physical custody and role in delivery mean it is a seller under LPLA. | Amazon is not a "seller" because it did not own or title the product and only facilitated delivery. | Amazon is a "seller" under LPLA when it has physical custody and controls the transaction/delivery, despite not holding title. |
| Under what circumstances Amazon may be liable for injuries via negligent undertaking | Amazon assumed a duty by adopting safety procedures, failed to exercise reasonable care, and Pickard relied on this. | Amazon did not assume a broad duty; safety tools were discretionary and sellers are responsible for safety. | Operator may be liable if it assumes a duty under §324A (Restatement), and the standards outlined in Bujol apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 262 So.2d 377 (La. 1972) (domestic distributors may become manufacturers for liability purposes where they significantly control product preparation)
- Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc., 922 So.2d 1113 (La. 2004) (set out test for assumption of duty under Restatement §324A for negligent undertaking)
- Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 974 So.2d 635 (La. 2007) (affirmed application of Restatement §324A for negligent undertaking)