As most of you know, Amazon has been fighting products liability claims across the country for some time now. While the company has been successful at stopping a tidal wave of litigation from injured users in the past, a recent decision made in Wisconsin sided with the plaintiff.
The court held that Amazon was so deeply involved with the transaction at issue that it was an entity that could be held strictly liable under Wisconsin law. It also held that 47 U.S.C. § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not immunize Amazon because its liability was not based on posting content from a third party.
In State Farm, Luke Cain (Cain), who was insured by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), purchased a bathtub faucet adapter from a third-party seller on Amazon.com. The third-party seller was XMJ, a Chinese company with no presence in the United States. A month after purchasing the item, the adapter failed due to a defect, causing flooding in Cain’s home. State Farm paid for repairs associated with the flooding and brought this subrogation action against Amazon.
Thereafter, Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that: 1) it was not a “seller” within the meaning of Wisconsin’s products liability statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.047; and 2) the CDA prohibited treating it as a “publisher” of third-party content posted on its website.
In its analysis, the court looked at several key facts about XMJ’s relationship with Amazon and Amazon’s services to Cain as the purchaser. It noted that Amazon provided payment processing and guaranteed the purchases. It also highlighted that XMJ participated in Amazon’s Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) program, pursuant to which Amazon stored XMJ’s products and fulfilled its orders. Amazon also required XMJ to register its products for sale and reserved the right to refuse registration. In addition, Amazon required XMJ to indemnify Amazon for any injury or property damage caused by XMJ’s products.
Upon analyzing the applicability of the Wisconsin strict liability statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.047(2), the court easily determined that the unknown manufacturer would be liable and that it was not subject to process in Wisconsin. Thus, the only question remaining was whether the plaintiff could recover from Amazon in the manufacturer’s absence. The court disagreed with Amazon’s argument that it could not be held liable as a seller because it never took title to the product.
Instead, the court held that Wisconsin’s statute does not restrict liability for defective products to a narrow class such as sellers or distributors. Rather, the statute limits the circumstances under which a plaintiff can hold a non-manufacturing defendant liable. Because the court found that Amazon took on more than a peripheral role in putting the defective product into the stream of commerce, the court held that State Farm could hold Amazon liable as a seller or distributor.
The court also declined to apply the immunity provided in the CDA to Amazon.
The CDA provides immunity to interactive computer services from claims based on content written and provided by third parties. Since the products liability claim at issue was not based on whether Amazon published XMJ’s product listing but, rather, on Amazon’s role in the chain of distribution, the court held that the CDA did not apply. Thus, the court denied Amazon’s motion for summary judgment. Soon after it did so, the parties settled the case.
This case is just one of several addressing the evolving status of Amazon as a product seller and its claim for immunity from products liability claims based on the CDA.
Although this case isn’t taking place in Nevada, it serves as a reminder of how important it is to obtain all of the facts regarding Amazon’s involvement in the posting, sale and shipment of the product at issue. The strength of a strict liability case against Amazon may likely dependent on several key elements specific to your case, such as the seller’s involvement in Amazon’s FBA program.
As more Amazon cases are decided and parties appeal to various courts, the evolution of Amazon’s products liability and CDA defenses is sure to continue.
If you or your client has been injured by a product you purchased from Amazon or any other business, call us to discuss your case. Our presence can drastically increase it’s value for you or your firm.
Prince Law Group Files Ethics Complaint Against Clark County Commissioner Ross Miller
Attorney Dennis Prince filed an ethics complaint on February 24, 2022 on behalf of Cheyenne Medical, LLC, which owns Thrive. The complaint accuses Commissioner Miller of making defamatory comments about the business and having “extensive conflicts of interests” because Miller’s law firm previously sued Thrive and represented a dozen of the company’s competitors. Click here to view full article.
Prince Law Group Files Complaint Against ASTEC Industries – Maker of the Pioneer Jaw Crusher
Prince Law Group filed the complaint on February 9, 2022 on behalf of the family of Harry Kenneth Peterson III who was killed while operating the rock-crushing machine at a Henderson job site on February 5, 2021. The lawsuit accuses ASTEC of failing to design a jaw crusher machine that could safely rest in a “neutral position” or be disassembled. Dielco Crane Service was also named in the complaint for subjecting Mr. Peterson to “unreasonably dangerous work conditions.” Click here to view full article.
Dennis Prince a “Modern Man” in VEGAS Magazine
As a teenager in Las Vegas, Dennis Prince learned a lot from a family friend who was a prominent Lawyer in Nevada. “He would explain to me how rewarding being a lawyer was to him, how intellectually challenging the law was and his passion for being a trial lawyer, Prince says “I went to watch him in court several times while I was in high school and, after that, I knew I wanted to be a lawyer.”
Today, Prince is a trial attorney and owner at Prince Law Group, specializing in personal injury product liability, wrongful death, insurance had faith, medical/ legal malpractice and business litigation. “Most of our clients have had something devastating happen to them or to one of their family members,” he says. “So, to bring our clients justice and see the change in their life is not only rewarding but also inspiring, Remaining client-centered at all times is the greatest inspiration for not only me but all members of our firm.”
After nearly 30 years of working as a trial lawyer. Prince says that he was fortunate as a young lawyer to be mentored by people that he respected greatly “They taught me not only the importance of understanding the nuances of the Law and being well prepared, but the importance of professionalism. and how to interact with judges and members of the judiciary, while also bring a zealous advocate he says. “Earning the respect of my colleagues, judges and most importantly, my clients continues to drive my career to where it is today.” Click to view full article.
Prince Law Group to Litigate Complaint Against Pump It Up – Las Vegas for Jumping Pad Failure Resulting in Disabling Personal Injury
Plaintiff Angela Balian visited the Pump It Up – Las Vegas inflatable playground for fun and entertainment, but when she leapt from the top jumping pad, the landing area deflated on impact. She sustained disabling injuries, potentially lifelong, due to the carelessness and negligence of the defendants who were aware or should have been aware that inflation problems existed with the amusement apparatus.
Prince Law Group is pursuing four causes of action in the case. They include Negligence/Gross Negligence/Punitive Damages, Vicarious Liability, Negligent Hiring/Retention/Supervision, and Products Liability/Failure to Warn. The firm is currently in the discovery phase of litigation. Trial is currently set for 11/15/21.
Victim of shooting at Henderson golf course files lawsuit
A complaint was recently filed on behalf of Daniel Sauls, the victim of an April 17 shooting at Legacy Golf Course in Henderson, against the estate of Clarence Jackson and Mary Casey for damages that exceed $50,000.
The complaint, filed by attorneys Dennis M. Prince and Angela Lee of Prince Law Group, states Sauls was playing the 16th hole of Legacy Golf Course with friends when a ball hit a neighboring home. Jackson emerged from the home, threw the golf ball back at the golfers, hitting one in the face, and engaged in a verbal disagreement.
Once the argument de-escalated, the golfers continued to play the 16th hole and then got into a golf cart to travel to the next hole, which crossed Ping Drive. As the golf cart was crossing the road, Jackson approached with a firearm.
According to the complaint, the gun discharged accidentally and “at no point did Jackson deliberately or purposefully point his firearm” and “was shocked that the firearm accidentally went off and appeared shaken.” The bullet entered Sauls’ hand, struck him in the abdomen and lodged in his small intestine.
As friends administered care to Sauls, Casey arrived on the scene and called emergency services. Jackson retreated to the home and took his own life.
The complaint alleges Jackson was negligent and did not exercise “reasonable care concerning the firearm and the dangerous condition he created,” and Casey failed to store the firearm in a safe place, creating a safety hazard. The complaint was filed in the Eighth Judicial Court in Clark County, Nevada.
“It’s unfortunate and unacceptable that an outing for fun and recreation would result in an innocent person confronted with a life-threatening situation,” Prince said. “There was no reason for this situation to spiral into violence.”
Lawsuit alleges negligence in guard’s death at gate to upscale Henderson community
A lawsuit alleging negligence and wrongful death has been filed in District Court following the January death of a security guard working at the entry gate to an upscale Henderson community.
Mark Theodore Streit, 60, died as he was trying to help an RC Willey delivery truck back out of a driveway at the entrance to Roma Hills.
The lawsuit, filed March 25 on behalf of Streit’s widow, Sharon Streit, alleges negligence on the part of the box truck driver, RC Willey, the Roma Hills Owners’ Association and Real Properties Management Group, Inc.
Included in the lawsuit is a letter to a manager for Real Properties expressing concern over the “current Roma Hills gate and road situation” and road work that is “incredibly dangerous.” An unnamed resident sent the letter the morning of March 25, according to lawyers for Sharon Streit.
According to the letter, “The main gate has 1 way in and with multiple projects taking place there are literally 20-30 vehicles trying to get in with 1 guard. This is impossible and dangerous. We Love Mark but the guy is just overwhelmed.”
The letter even offers a list of solutions needed to address the problem. When the truck could not get through the entrance, Streit told the driver he would have to use a construction entrance, and went to clear traffic behind the box truck so it could back out.
A news story based on information from Henderson police indicates Streit fell in the path of the truck for unknown reasons. But the lawsuit alleges the truck hit Streit and knocked him down before rolling over him.
Allegations in the lawsuit claim the driver and another employee who failed to assist are responsible for the guard’s death. The RC Willey employees “acted recklessly, maliciously, and/or oppressively with intent to allow injury and death to the Decedent,” according to claims in the lawsuit.
Sharon Streit is represented by lawyers from the Prince Law Group. The lawsuit seeks general, compensatory, special and pecuniary damages in excess of $50,000, and punitive damages on top of that.
Widow of Guard Killed by Furniture Truck Files Nevada Case
The widow of a security guard killed struck and killed by a furniture delivery truck maneuvering out of a tight spot in an upscale southern Nevada neighborhood is seeking monetary damages from the furniture company and others.
Attorneys for Sharon Streit allege in a civil lawsuit filed March 25 in state court in Las Vegas that R.C. Willey Home Furnishings and the Roma Hills community owners association in Henderson were among those responsible for what the complaint called wrongful death and negligence.
A spokesman for Utah-based R.C. Willey did not immediately respond Wednesday to a telephone message.
Attorney Martin Kravitz, representing the homeowners’ association, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal he was not immediately served with the lawsuit.
Mark Streit, 60, was at a guarded gate entrance where a construction project created a traffic bottleneck and a delivery truck driven by an unnamed driver was forced to turn around, authorities said. Streit was fatally struck when the truck backed up.
“This tragic outcome could have been avoided had common sense safety precautions been in place,” attorney Dennis Prince said in a prepared statement.
Kravitz told the Review-Journal he lives in the community, where people thought highly of Streit and were shocked by his death.
Trial Attorney Las Vegas
Hire a Successful Trial Attorney for Your Upcoming Business or Personal Case
Hiring the right trial attorney to represent your interest, whether it be a business lawsuit or a personal injury case, it’s a decision that can pay off. It’s important for you to understand your limitations and rights when it comes to filing a civil case, and you’ll want to be sure to hire someone not only with the experience but also the capacity to give your case the attention it needs. Not all Trial Attorneys in Las Vegas are created equal, so when you do your personal vetting, make sure to ask about caseload, client load, and past similar experiences before retaining counsel for your trial.
Protecting your business is a necessary step in ensuring your future and securing your personal wealth. There are a variety of business litigation types and various situations in which you’ll want to retain legal counsel to help settle a dispute. This may include cases of injury occurring at your place of business, potential product liability, or accusations of negligence or unsafe working conditions. A good trial attorney from Las Vegas can explain both the local and state laws that govern potential rulings and judgments and also advise you of the best options on whether to settle or go to trial.
A Gamble that Pays Off
If you find yourself needing a trial lawyer for your personal injury cases, find someone well versed and knowledgeable on how to seek compensation to pay for your ongoing medical expenses, wages and salary lost from missing work due to the injury. Also, consider the long-term impact of the injury on your ability to provide for yourself and your dependents. An experienced trial attorney often receives referrals from other inexperienced personal injury attorneys, especially on difficult cases, or cases where there is gross negligence. Maximize your payout by retaining someone with a successful record, past similar experience, and a great reputation within the local industry. If you want the same trial attorney from beginning to end of your trial rather than one who passes you on to another trial lawyer because you can’t settle, then look for someone with the best trial experience. In Nevada, that trial lawyer is Dennis Prince at The DPLG.
Las Vegas Trial Lawyer Dennis Prince Obtains 7-Figure Jury Verdict on Behalf of Car Accident Victim Hit by a Forklift While Driving a Work Vehicle
LAS VEGAS (Sept. 30, 2019) – Dennis Prince, one of Las Vegas, Nevada’s most respected trial lawyers, has obtained a 7-figure jury verdict on behalf of a car accident victim facing severe and debilitating injuries.
Following four days of jury selection, the trial of Bahram Yahyavi v. Capriati Construction Corp., Inc. began September 13, 2019. The case arose from a June 19, 2013 incident in which Mr. Yahyavi’s Dodge Charger, which he was driving as part of his job with Chapman Las Vegas Dodge, was struck by a forklift driven by a former employee of Defendant Capriati Construction Corp., Inc.
The forks penetrated Mr. Yahyavi’s front end from the passenger’s side, caused the front windshield to cave into the car, and came dangerously close to Mr. Yahyavi’s head. The forklift driver was instructed to not operate a forklift by Capriati Construction’s former safety manager prior to the subject collision.
Mr. Yahyavi sustained a severe and debilitating injury to his neck as a result of the collision. After Mr. Yahyavi exhausted all conservative care options, which included chiropractic care, physical therapy, and pain injection therapy, he underwent a five-level cervical spine fusion surgery.
Following a 15-day jury trial, Capriati Construction was found liable for causing the subject collision and Mr. Yahyavi’s injuries. The jury unanimously awarded Mr. Yahyavi damages in the amount of $5,870,283.24.
About Prince Law Group
Prince Law Group is an award-winning Las Vegas based boutique litigation law firm dedicated to the aggressive representation of clients suffering from the devastating injuries caused by the negligence of another. Built upon the extensive background and experience of Dennis Prince in the areas of trial practice, personal injury, insurance law, and commercial litigation, Prince Law Group offers a sophisticated level of representation and a team approach where each trial lawyer plays to his or her strengths in order to effectively protect our client’s rights up to the time of trial. We comprehensively and seamlessly prepare each case for trial in court. Prince Law Group also pursues forms of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation and arbitration when it is in the best interest of the client. Learn more by visiting our website at thedplg.com.
Amazon Is Now a Seller Under Wisconsin’s Products Liability Law
As most of you know, Amazon has been fighting products liability claims across the country for some time now. While the company has been successful at stopping a tidal wave of litigation from injured users in the past, a recent decision made in Wisconsin sided with the plaintiff.
In the case of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122316, 2019 WL 3304887, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon).
The court held that Amazon was so deeply involved with the transaction at issue that it was an entity that could be held strictly liable under Wisconsin law. It also held that 47 U.S.C. § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not immunize Amazon because its liability was not based on posting content from a third party.
In State Farm, Luke Cain (Cain), who was insured by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), purchased a bathtub faucet adapter from a third-party seller on Amazon.com. The third-party seller was XMJ, a Chinese company with no presence in the United States. A month after purchasing the item, the adapter failed due to a defect, causing flooding in Cain’s home. State Farm paid for repairs associated with the flooding and brought this subrogation action against Amazon.
Thereafter, Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that: 1) it was not a “seller” within the meaning of Wisconsin’s products liability statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.047; and 2) the CDA prohibited treating it as a “publisher” of third-party content posted on its website.
In its analysis, the court looked at several key facts about XMJ’s relationship with Amazon and Amazon’s services to Cain as the purchaser. It noted that Amazon provided payment processing and guaranteed the purchases. It also highlighted that XMJ participated in Amazon’s Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) program, pursuant to which Amazon stored XMJ’s products and fulfilled its orders. Amazon also required XMJ to register its products for sale and reserved the right to refuse registration. In addition, Amazon required XMJ to indemnify Amazon for any injury or property damage caused by XMJ’s products.
Upon analyzing the applicability of the Wisconsin strict liability statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.047(2), the court easily determined that the unknown manufacturer would be liable and that it was not subject to process in Wisconsin. Thus, the only question remaining was whether the plaintiff could recover from Amazon in the manufacturer’s absence. The court disagreed with Amazon’s argument that it could not be held liable as a seller because it never took title to the product.
Instead, the court held that Wisconsin’s statute does not restrict liability for defective products to a narrow class such as sellers or distributors. Rather, the statute limits the circumstances under which a plaintiff can hold a non-manufacturing defendant liable. Because the court found that Amazon took on more than a peripheral role in putting the defective product into the stream of commerce, the court held that State Farm could hold Amazon liable as a seller or distributor.
The court also declined to apply the immunity provided in the CDA to Amazon.
The CDA provides immunity to interactive computer services from claims based on content written and provided by third parties. Since the products liability claim at issue was not based on whether Amazon published XMJ’s product listing but, rather, on Amazon’s role in the chain of distribution, the court held that the CDA did not apply. Thus, the court denied Amazon’s motion for summary judgment. Soon after it did so, the parties settled the case.
This case is just one of several addressing the evolving status of Amazon as a product seller and its claim for immunity from products liability claims based on the CDA.
Although this case isn’t taking place in Nevada, it serves as a reminder of how important it is to obtain all of the facts regarding Amazon’s involvement in the posting, sale and shipment of the product at issue. The strength of a strict liability case against Amazon may likely dependent on several key elements specific to your case, such as the seller’s involvement in Amazon’s FBA program.
As more Amazon cases are decided and parties appeal to various courts, the evolution of Amazon’s products liability and CDA defenses is sure to continue.
If you or your client has been injured by a product you purchased from Amazon or any other business, call us to discuss your case. Our presence can drastically increase it’s value for you or your firm.