Amazon asks Minnesota justices to extinguish $4 million battery fire suit

Minnesota's Supreme Court heard arguments over whether Amazon can be held to the same strict product liability standard as traditional retailers after a defective phone battery, sold by a Chinese merchant and marketed as an 'Amazon's Choice' product, caused a 2018 Edina fire that led to nearly $4 million in damage. The seller, Yishda, proved insolvent, leaving insurer Berkley Regional as the only party able to pursue Amazon directly.

Amazon argues it's merely a marketplace, not a seller or distributor, and therefore exempt from the liability that applies to companies like Walmart. Berkley's attorney countered that Amazon 'possesses, controls, markets and physically distributes' these products and is doing the functional equivalent of retail without holding title, a distinction the bench appeared skeptical of, with one justice asking plainly why Amazon shouldn't bear the same risk any seller does when a manufacturer turns out to be unreachable.

Most courts that have considered the question, including in Texas, Ohio, and two federal circuits, have declined to extend strict liability to online marketplaces, making Minnesota's ruling a potential outlier either way it goes.

The full dispatch is available from the source below.