Also contributed by William Schoof*
Should an e-commerce firm be held liable for the defects of every item it sells on its global internet marketplace? In Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-03013, 2018 BL 191355 (M.D. Tenn. May 30, 2018), plaintiffs argued exactly that, and the district court answered with a resounding “no”.
The popularity of self-balancing scooters, commonly known as hoverboards, exploded in late 2015, slowing only when the hoverboards, themselves, started exploding due to an alleged battery defect. Plaintiffs in Fox allegedly bought a hoverboard from a retailer on the Amazon.com marketplace and, after the hoverboard’s battery caught fire, they obtained a default judgement against that retailer.
Perhaps looking for deeper pockets, plaintiffs sought to hold Amazon liable for the product’s alleged defect, too. But Amazon did not design or manufacture the product. It did not produce or develop any info
Read the full article →
also contributed to by Kelsey Watkins* Consumers are interacting with technology to accomplish an increasingly wide variety of daily tasks, whether finding a date with the swipe of a finger or learning the weather from a voice-controlled assistant. These technological advances present potential legal risks for their creators. Indeed, inRead the full article →
The Seventh Circuit recently upheld the grant of summary judgment against a plaintiff asserting products liability claims against the manufacturer of an intrauterine device (IUD). See Dalton v. Teva N. Am., No. 17-1990, 2018 WL 2470634 (7th Cir. June 4, 2018). Because the plaintiff failed to produce expert testimony regardingRead the full article →
If you are someone who chooses an item on a restaurant menu based on calorie content, you are in luck. This month, the FDA’s “Menu Labeling Rule” requiring calorie counts next to menu items went into effect. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb issued a press release providing an overview of the labelingRead the full article →
Finding his claims were time-barred, the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of Appellant’s complaint in Ferro v. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC, No. 17-2129, 2018 WL 2068665 (4th Cir. May 3, 2018) (“Ferro II”). The decision is a good example of why it is important for defense counselRead the full article →