Ruth Scott, V. Amazon.com, Inc.
559 P.3d 528
Wash. Ct. App.2024Background
- Families of four individuals who died by suicide after ingesting high-purity sodium nitrite purchased from Amazon.com sued Amazon under multiple theories: products liability, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
- Plaintiffs alleged Amazon negligently sold and promoted sodium nitrite knowing it was being used for suicide, and failed to warn or concealed its risks.
- Amazon moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6), arguing Washington law does not impose liability for another’s suicide where there was no special relationship or involuntary act, and that suicide as a voluntary act is a superseding cause.
- The trial courts denied Amazon’s motions to dismiss, leading Amazon to seek discretionary appellate review.
- On review, the Court of Appeals considered whether product sellers have a duty to protect against a product’s intentional misuse for suicide and whether the chain of causation is broken by suicide under Washington law.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts, holding for Amazon and ordering dismissal of the complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Products liability and negligence under WPLA | Amazon is liable for negligently selling and failing to warn re: sodium nitrite; intentional concealment | No duty to protect against intentional misuse; suicide breaks causation chain | No duty under WPLA; claims dismissed |
| Common law negligence / negligent infliction of distress | Duty arises from supplying dangerous product to vulnerable people, including a duty not to aid suicide | No special relationship; no direct deprivation of control; suicide is superseding cause | No duty; suicide is a superseding cause |
| Duty under Restatement § 390 (supplier duty) | Amazon owed special duty to vulnerable purchasers under supplier of chattel doctrine | No face-to-face transaction; cannot identify incompetency online; context not comparable to precedent | Doctrine not applicable; no duty |
| Consumer Protection Act (CPA) | Amazon’s conduct was unfair/deceptive under CPA and caused compensable injury | No injury to business/property; seeking redress for personal injuries barred | No qualifying injury; CPA claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Cutler v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 124 Wn.2d 749 (Wash. 1994) (standard for CR 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Webstad v. Stortini, 83 Wn. App. 857 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996) (no general duty to protect others from self-inflicted harm, i.e., suicide)
- Bernethy v. Walt Failor’s, Inc., 97 Wn.2d 929 (Wash. 1982) (adopting Restatement § 390 on supplying chattels to incompetents)
- Orcutt v. Spokane County, 58 Wn.2d 846 (Wash. 1961) (suicide as a superseding cause unless deprived of mental faculties)
- Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., 176 Wn.2d 555 (Wash. 2013) (WPLA is the exclusive remedy for product liability claims)
- Mason v. Mortgage America, Inc., 114 Wn.2d 842 (Wash. 1990) (setting forth the elements necessary for a Consumer Protection Act claim)