Federal Court denies motion to dismiss claim against Amazon for damages caused by product sold by a "third party seller" through Amazon's website

Two years ago I reported that a California Appellate Court held that Amazon can be liable in products liability for products sold by other vendors through Amazon.  See here.  A few months later, the Texas Supreme Court reached the exact opposite result.  See here.

I am writing about this today again because a a federal court in Louisiana recently declined to issue judgment in favor of Amazon on its argument that it is not liable for products sold by about two million “third party sellers,” such as the one that sold a defective battery charger that caused a deadly house fire resulting in this wrongful death lawsuit.  You can read the decision here.

Texas Supreme Court holds that Amazon can not be held liable for injuries caused by products sold by others through Amazon

Back in May I reported that a California Appellate Court held that Amazon can be liable in products liability for products sold by other vendors through Amazon.  As this happened, the exact same issue was certified to the Texas Supreme Court, and now we have a ruling.

In direct contrast with the California Appellate Court, the Texas Supreme Court held that Amazon can NOT be liable because it does not act as a seller.  

If you are looking for good topic for a law review article, here you go!  Now you have two totally opposite views on exactly the same issue.  

In both cases Amazon argued that it should not be liable to the consumer because it operates only as a marketplace, not as a seller in the chain of commerce.  The court in California did not agree, but the court in Texas did.  

The California court found that Amazon operated as a seller, or at least a distributor in the chain of commerce, rather than as a neutral "mall".  Amazon handled all product advertising, payment processing, and communication between the buyer and the manufacturer.   Also, Amazon may be the only member of the distribution chain reasonably available for an injured consumer to recover damages.

The Texas court held that Amazon did not qualify as a seller because it was not engaged in the business of distributing products through ordinary sales or placing products in the stream of commerce through non-sale commercial transactions, even though Amazon controlled the process of the transaction and the delivery of the product.

It is difficult for me to understand how someone who "controls the process of the transaction and delivery of the product" is not placing the product in the stream of commerce, so my best guess is that the issue comes down to the phrase "ordinary sales."  

Courthouse Network News has a short analysis of the case here.

Texas to decide whether Amazon can be held liable in products liability claim caused by product sold by a third party on its website

Back in August of last year, I reported that an appellate court in California found that Amazon.com could be sued for products liability for the value of injuries caused by defective goods sold on its website by third-party vendors.  See here.

Today I am writing to let you know that the same issue is now before the Texas Supreme Court.  Courthouse News Service is reporting that the issue is before the court in a case centered around a remote control battery swallowed by a 19-month-old child.  Go here for more information.

Short article on the state of defamation law

Last month, the Texas Supreme Court rejected Alex Jones’ petition to review a lower court's decision to allow a defamation lawsuit to proceed against him.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are some of the parents of children who died in the Sandy Hook school shooting.  

In a short interview published in Above the Law, law professor Derek Bambauer, who coauthored an amicus brief to the Texas Supreme Court arguing that the defamation claim against Jones should proceed, talks about the case and the current state of defamation law in general.  You can read the interview here.

Texas Supreme Court reiterates that former criminal defendants suing their lawyers for negligence must prove actual innocence, even after exoneration

Long time readers of this blog may remember that I have posted many stories commenting on the fact that many (probably most) jurisdictions require former criminal defendants to prove actual innocence as a requirement to support malpractice claims against their criminal defense counsel. (Go here and scroll down for stories on this.)  In recent years, a number of jurisdictions have rejected this notion, but it still seems to be the majority approach. 

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Texas reaffirmed its position on this in a case called Gray v. Skelton, which you can read here.

What makes this case interesting is that it clarifies that merely getting a conviction reversed, or being "exonerated" is not, by itself, enough to show actual innocence.  As the court explains, 

...exoneration . . . requires not only that the underlying criminal conviction be vacated but also proof of innocence. Innocence, however, can be established in more than one way. It can be established in the underlying criminal proceeding when the conviction is vacated on an actual-innocence finding. . . .Or, if the conviction is vacated on other grounds, formerly convicted individuals may prove their innocence in their malpractice suit against their criminal-defense attorneys.