LAW: Case 8.1 Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 415 (6th Cir.) 2019 Facts: Plaintiffs are a family that resides in David

[answerhappygod]

LAW: Case 8.1 Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d415 (6th Cir.) 2019
Facts: Plaintiffs are a family thatresides in Davidson County, Tennessee. Defendant Amazon is acorporation that operates a worldwide online marketplace.Defendant’s marketplace facilitates the sale of products fromitself and other sellers. W2M Trading Corp. (“W2M”) is acorporation that at one time was a third-party seller that utilizedAmazon’s marketplace to sell hoverboards. Plaintiffs purchased ahoverboard and believed that Amazon-owned the hoverboard and thatthey purchased the hoverboard from Amazon. However, Defendant’srecords show that W2M owned the hoverboard, and that Plaintiffpurchased the hoverboard from W2M through Amazon’s marketplace.Defendant attempted to demand safety compliance documentation fromthird-party hoverboard sellers following initial reports ofhoverboard fires and explosions. After research on hoverboardsDefendant sent an email to all hoverboard purchasers that stated“There have been news reports of safety issues involving productslike the one you purchased that contain rechargeable lithium-ionbatteries. As a precaution, we want to share with you someadditional information about lithium-ion batteries and safety tipsfor using products that contain them. The email included a link forthe ”information and safety tips,” a link “to initiate a return,”and a request that the recipient ”pass along this information “ tothe proper person if the hoverboard was purchased for someone else.After Amazon sent the email the hoverboard purchased by the Foxfamily caught on fire and burned down the family’s house. Theplaintiffs sued Amazon under the theories of violation of theTennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the theory ofnegligence.
Issues:
1. Does Amazon exercise sufficient control over a product inconnection with its bailment and sale of hoverboards to placeAmazon in the position to be responsible for product defects andassociated injuries or losses under the TCPA?
2. Was Amazon negligent in its duty to warn Plaintiff about thedefective or unreasonably dangerous nature of that product?
Legal Reasoning: A manufacturer or sellerof a product may be liable for personal injury or property damagecaused by that product if it was in a defective condition orunreasonably dangerous at the time it left the control of themanufacturer or seller. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-105(a). Inaddition, a seller is defined as any individual or entity engagedin the business of selling a product, including a retailer,wholesaler, or distributor, as well as a lessor engaged in thebusiness of leasing a product and a bailor engaged in the businessof bailment of a product. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-102(7).
Defendant sent email warning purchasers of the issues withhoverboards. The fact that Defendant assumed a duty to act raises a“genuine issue of material fact” regarding whether Defendantbreached that duty and whether any breach caused Plaintiff'sphysical harm. For instance, there is a genuine issue of materialfact regarding whether Defendant’s failure to include certaininformation in the December 12, 2015 email amounted tonegligence.
Court Ruling:
1. Amazon did not exercise sufficient control over a product toassign them liability as a seller under the Tennessee ConsumerProtection Act. Therefore, the Court of Appeals upheld the trialcourt’s issuance of a summary judgment in favor of Amazon on theclaim of violation of the TCPA.
2. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s issuance of asummary judgment in favor of Amazon on the tort claim becauseAmazon issued a warning to purchasers of the product that could beconsidered an assumption of duty.
Questions:
3. In order for Amazon to be negligent about the warningprovided to customers they must have a duty, breach, direct cause,and damages relating to that duty to warn. Analyze these fourelements regarding their warning to customers regardinghoverboards.