Amazon.com Deemed to Be a "Seller" Capable of Being Sued Under Pennsylvania Products Liability Law

In the case of Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 18-1041 (3d Cir. July 3, 2019 Shwartz, J., Scirica, J., Roth, J.) (Op. by Roth, J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and held that Amazon.com may be sued as a "seller" in products liability cases.

The case arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff was injured when a retractable leash she was using while walking her dog allegedly malfunction, snapped back, and caused permanent injury to the Plaintiff's eye.

The federal appellate court in Pennsylvania ruled that Amazon.com was a "seller" as that term was defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts and was, therefore, subject to potential strict products liability.  As such, under this decision, the online retail giant may be potentially liable under Pennsylvania products liability law for defective products sold by third party vendors through Amazon.com.

With this decision, the Third Circuit overruled the decision by a Federal Middle District Court Judge who had predicted that, if faced with the issue, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule that Amazon.com did not meet the definition of a "seller" under the applicable strict products liability law.

As noted by Max Mitchell in his July 3, 2019 article in the Legal Intelligencer entitled "Amazon May Be Sued in Products Liability Cases Stemming From Third Party Vendor Sales, 3rd Circ. Rules," which article brought this decision to my attention, the Oberdorf case contributes to a split of authority amongst the Federal Circuit Courts.  As such, this issue certainly may become one to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court some day.

Anyone wishing to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Oberdorf may click this LINK

The Tort Talk post on the District Court's previous decision can be viewed HERE.

UPDATE:  According to a July 22, 2019 article in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Amazon had filed a Petition with the Third Circuit to review the issue again by way of an en banc panel.

UPDATE:  According to a September 23, 2020 article in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, this case was settled and, therefore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not be addressing the question presented.

Amazon.com Found Not to Be A "Seller" for Purposes of Pennsylvania Strict Liability Claim (UPDATE: Reversed on Appeal)

In the case of Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4: 16-CV-01127 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2017 Brann, J.) Judge Matthew W. Brann of the Middle District Federal Court of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant after finding that an online marketer, such as Amazon.com, is not liable for defects in products purchased through its website from third party vendors.  

The case arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff was injured when a retractable leash she was using while walking her dog allegedly malfunction, snapped back, and caused permanent injury to the Plaintiff's eye.

The court generally noted that the online marketer is not a seller of third-party products as required by §402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.  

Rather, the court found that the Amazon.com website was a merely a means of marketing products by a third party seller who chose what products to market and how.   The court noted that, due to the enormous number of third party sellers and their products, the Defendant, Amazon.com, was not in a position to pass upon the quality of the innumerable products available on its website.  

Rather, the Amazon Marketplace was deemed by the court as a sort of newspaper classified ad section that puts potential consumers in touch with sellers.

As such, given that the court found that Amazon.com is not a seller in the context of Section 402A, the Plaintiff's strict liability claims asserted against this online marketer were dismissed.

Judge Brann's Opinion in Oberdorf can be viewed at this LINK.  The Court's accompanying Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia law office of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my attention. 

UPDATE:  On July 3, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed this decision in an Opinion issued under docket No. 18-1041.  Type "Oberdorf" into the Search Box to access the Tort Talk blog post on that decision along with a Link to the Third Circuit's Opinion.

UPDATE:  According to a September 23, 2020 article in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, this case was settled and, therefore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not be addressing the question presented.