334 So.3d 780
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- In April 2016 Cassandra Skaggs bought a replacement lithium-ion laptop battery via Amazon's marketplace; the listed seller was Talented & Gifted (T&G).
- In November 2016 the replacement battery overheated and ignited, causing serious burn injuries to Skaggs.
- Skaggs sued Amazon (and others), alleging: Amazon was a seller/manufacturer (LPLA/strict liability) or, alternatively, a negligent seller; and that Amazon assumed a duty to warn customers about unsafe batteries through its product-safety monitoring and breached that duty.
- Skaggs abandoned any claim that Amazon was the manufacturer; the central claims were (1) Amazon was a “seller” under LSA-R.S. 9:2800.53(2) and (2) Amazon assumed a duty to warn and negligently performed it.
- Amazon moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence that T&G—not Amazon—had title, possession, shipping responsibility, labeling, and warranty control; Amazon’s Product Safety Team only notified purchasers of specific ASINs with safety reports, and no complaints existed for Skaggs’s ASIN before her accident.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Amazon; the First Circuit affirmed, finding Amazon was not the seller and that Skaggs failed to prove increased risk or reliance under an assumed-duty theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amazon is a "seller" for tort liability under LPLA/non-manufacturer seller theory | Amazon functioned as a retailer: listing, taking payment, facilitating the sale, and receiving fees — thus Amazon was "in the business of conveying title or possession" and is liable as a seller | Amazon never had title or possession, did not ship or label the product, did not control design/warnings/warranty; the seller was T&G per Amazon records and the BSA/ordering interface | Amazon is not a seller under LSA‑R.S. 9:2800.53(2); summary judgment for Amazon affirmed (no factual support that Amazon conveyed title/possession or held out the product as its own) |
| Whether Amazon assumed a post‑sale duty to warn via its Product Safety Team and breached it (negligent undertaking) | Amazon monitored product safety and selectively warned buyers of ASINs with complaints; by doing so it assumed a duty to warn all customers of related seller lines (including Skaggs) and its failure increased her risk and induced reliance | ||
| Amazon's selective notifications concerned only specific ASINs with complaints; there were no reports for Skaggs's ASIN before her accident; even if Amazon assumed a duty, Skaggs has no evidence Amazon's actions increased her risk or that she relied on Amazon's monitoring | Even assuming Amazon undertook a duty, Skaggs failed to show (Restatement §323 / Bujol elements) that Amazon's conduct increased her risk of harm or that her injury resulted from reliance on Amazon's actions; summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 123 So. 3d 712 (La. 2013) (non‑manufacturer seller liability requires knowledge or constructive knowledge of defect and failure to declare it)
- Bujol v. Entergy Servs., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1113 (La. 2004) (elements for recovery on negligent assumption of duty; plaintiff must show increased risk or reliance caused the harm)
- Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, 79 So. 3d 987 (La. 2011) (statutory interpretation principles; clear statutory language governs and is applied de novo)