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.
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 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.
Consumer Reports’ Study Suggests 1 in 6 Uber and Lyft Cars Have Open Safety Recalls
Among the tens of thousands of Uber and Lyft vehicles registered to operate in New York City, there’s a 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS with eight unaddressed safety recalls that range from a potential seat-belt detachment to even more alarming examples, such as possible engine failure.
“Uber and Lyft are letting down their customers and jeopardizing their trust,” says William Wallace, a CR safety policy advocate. “Uber’s website says people can ‘ride with confidence,’ while Lyft promises ‘peace of mind,’ yet both companies fail to ensure that rideshare cars are free from safety defects that could put passengers at risk.”
As Uber and Lyft announced becoming multibillion-dollar IPOs earlier this year, CR decided to check on the safety of the privately owned vehicles that are key to company operations and are now used by more than 100 million consumers.
CR reviewed safety records for about 94,000 vehicles registered as operating for the companies in NYC and King County, Wash. (home to Seattle), two major ride-hailing hubs with local governments that require drivers to register vehicles and obtain an additional license to work through regulators. The CR analysis of the data is meant to provide a snapshot of open safety recalls among ride-hailing cars in the industry, but it might not reflect the national market.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL REPORT ON THE CONSUMER AFFAIRS WEBSITE
Infant Birth Injury Warning Signs and Symptoms
Most birth injuries involve serious complications that can lead to permanent disabilities and disfigurement, especially if not treated immediately. Left untreated, these injuries can develop into severe consequences that can also lead to your child developing a brain trauma or paralysis. As a new parent, it’s critical to understand and be on the lookout for the warning signs and symptoms children can experience following delivery.
Here are some immediate warning signs and symptoms your child has suffered a birth injury:
Actions Symptoms:
Health-Related Symptoms:
Muscle and Bone Symptoms:
Symptoms That May Surface Between 12-24 Months of Age
Although a birth injury may have happened just before, during, or after delivery, the body takes a while to demonstrate its symptoms, sometimes into toddler-hood.
The common birth injury symptoms that appear during the toddler years include:
Developmental Milestones:
Infants, toddlers, and children who miss developmental milestones may have experienced a birth injury.
2 to 4 months old:
6 to 9 months old:
1 years old:
18 months old:
2-3 years old:
4-5 years old:
Keep in mind that only a physician can diagnose disabilities and disorders. If your child is showing signs of birth injuries or is behind in developmental milestones, call a medical professional for help.
If you believe a medical professional or hospital is responsible for your child’s birth injury, contact my office today to discuss your case. We can help make sure your child obtains the compensation they need to live their life to the fullest.
Here’s What Hospitals Should do to Prevent Women From Experiencing Hypertension During Childbirth
Please join us in our efforts to bring awareness to the preventable injuries that take place in hospitals every day and share this post with your friends and family.
View this post on Instagram.
We are dedicated to helping pregnant women and their families obtain the maximum possible compensation for injuries they’ve sustained during the delivery process. Contact my office today with questions about your case!
New Study Finds Child Brain Injury Linked to Everyday Household Items
About 72% of traumatic brain injury-related emergency department visits among children are attributable to consumer products, according to a study recently published in the journal Brain Injury earlier this year.
The study found that the top 10 leading products contributing to non-fatal traumatic brain injuries in children younger than a year to 19 years old are:
Traumatic brain injury or TBI occurs when a sudden trauma — such as a bump, blow or jolt — causes damage to the brain.
The new study involved national estimates of approximately 4.1 million non-fatal traumatic brain injuries in children and adolescents in the United States between 2010 and 2013. The data came from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program.
The data showed that the most common product groups related to TBIs in children were related to sports and recreation, which was linked to 28.8% of injuries; home furnishings and fixtures, tied to 17.2% of injuries; home structures and construction materials, tied to 17.1% of injuries; child nursery equipment, tied to 2.7% of injuries, and toys, tied to 2.4%, among other products.
Traumatic brain injuries from home furnishings and fixtures, primarily beds, were highest among infants and children up to 4 years old. Whereas traumatic brain injuries from sports and recreation — especially football, bicycles and basketball — were highest among children ages 5 to 19.
The new study had some limitations, including that the severity of these injuries were not investigated and the data included only patients admitted to emergency departments.
The researchers recommended strategies to prevent TBI in children around the home, including removing tripping hazards such as area rugs; improving lighting; avoiding hard surface playgrounds; increasing use of home safety devices such as stair gates; and using stairway handrails without sharp edges, among other strategies.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a set of guidelines last year for the diagnosis, treatment and long-term care of children and teens with traumatic brain injuries.
If you or your child has experienced a brain injury of any kind, contact us today to schedule some time to talk about your case. We can help you get your life back on track.