A mislabeled battery that allegedly brought about a hearth in a Minnesota man’s storage final 12 months is the topic of a new lawsuit against Amazon. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance coverage Firm claims the e-commerce big offered the battery to its consumer, Dane Meyer of Cottonwood, Minnesota, final April and ought to be accountable for the $75,000 in damages attributable to the hearth.
In its criticism, Farm Bureau claims the battery was eligible for Amazon’s Prime delivery and was spotlighted as an “Amazon’s Alternative” product. “By way of its ‘Amazon’s Alternative’ program, Amazon ‘recommends extremely rated, well- priced merchandise out there to ship instantly,’” the criticism states.
In keeping with the criticism, the battery caught fireplace when it was used with an incompatible charger, a mannequin listed as “suitable” within the product itemizing data on Amazon’s web site.
The insurance coverage firm is suing for negligence, failure to warn, and legal responsibility, saying Amazon “performed a direct position within the promotion, gross sales, achievement, and distribution” of the battery, which it claims was delivered to Meyer in a field with the Amazon brand on it.
The lawsuit is the most recent check of how a lot duty Amazon bears for merchandise offered by third-party sellers on its platform. Prior to now, Amazon has maintained that, for some merchandise, it serves solely because the conduit between purchaser and vendor and thus isn’t accountable for defects in these merchandise.
In July 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Amazon was liable as the vendor of third-party vendor’s merchandise. The courtroom made its ruling within the case of a Pennsylvania lady who mentioned she was blinded in a single eye after a canine collar she purchased from a 3rd celebration by way of Amazon broke and struck her within the face.
“We don’t consider that Pennsylvania regulation shields an organization from strict legal responsibility just because it adheres to a enterprise mannequin that fails to prioritize shopper security,” based on the Third Circuit’s majority opinion.
Amazon didn’t reply to a request from The Verge looking for remark in regards to the pending lawsuit in Minnesota.