Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Amazon Isn't Liable For Damages Caused By a Hoverboard It Sold (cnbc.com)
Earlier this week, a judge in Tennessee ruled that Amazon isn't liable for damages caused by a hoverboard that spontaneously exploded and burned down a family's house, even though they bought it on Amazon's website. "The plaintiff claimed that Amazon didn't properly warn her about the dangers they knew existed with the product, but the judge didn't agree," reports CNBC. At the time, hoverboards were all the rage; Amazon sold almost 250,000 of them over a 30-day period. The plaintiff claims the company had an obligation to warn customers properly about the dangers it knew existed. "[The plaintiff] bought the hoverboard on Amazon, the receipt came from Amazon, the box had an Amazon label and all the money was in Amazon's hands," adds CNBC. "[The plaintiff] has been unable to find the Chinese manufacturer of the device." From the report: It's the latest legal victory for Amazon, which has for years fended off litigation related to product quality and safety by arguing that, for a big and growing part of its business, it's just a marketplace. There are buyers on one end and sellers on the other -- the argument goes -- and Amazon connects them through a popular portal, facilitating the transaction with a sophisticated logistics system. The courts are reinforcing the power of Amazon's business model as the ultimate middleman. But for American consumers, there's growing cause for concern. [...] But if Amazon isn't liable when faulty products sold through its website cause personal injuries and property damage, customers are often left with no recourse. That's because it's frequently impossible for consumers to figure out who manufactured the defective product and hold that party responsible.
We have consumer protection laws for a reason, and that reason is that not having them costs everyone money. This decision simply lets Amazon push the cost of doing business off onto the court system, which means We The People have to pay for their cost of doing business.
So your entire underlying assumption is society is responsible for protecting someone who gets on the internet to find the cheapest piece of Chinesium crap from some seller engaged in Alibabatrage?
Ummm, WHY?!?!?!
I'm not sure I can explain it in smaller words than I did above. When people get hurt because they are dumb and do dumb things, it costs us all money, and it actually turns out to be cheaper for all of us to protect them from doing extremely dumb things. When someone burns their house down, it might burn your house down. They might have to move and consequently not do their job, which has downstream ripple effects that also cost other people money.
Also, keep in mind that people don't even have to be dumb, just uneducated. In part because we have these consumer protection laws, people have gotten used to the idea that stuff they buy from major retailers won't burn their house down. Between the circuit overload protection devices in their homes which are legally mandated, and the usual legally mandated consumer protections that we have come to enjoy here in the supposedly greatest nation in the world, this is usually a safe assumption.
Does this mean that people are getting used to taking less responsibility for themselves in certain areas? Yes, it does. But no one can reasonably be expected to be educated in all areas. The world is simply too complex for that. Given that, isn't it valid to offer people some basic protection? Is there actually some public interest in permitting companies to sell batteries which are best marketed as incendiary devices as if it were a good idea to bring them into your homes? In my book, that's a form of fraud. These devices were utterly unfit for their stated purpose, and constituted a significant public hazard.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because it is. Every regulation tells us what we can't do or what we have to do in order to do business. When you add them up, they're onerous and they prevent people from getting what they want.
Adults aren't little children. We're capable of making decisions based on what the risks are. If you're worried about cheap Chinese products on Amazon, then there is a simple solution, pay attention to the listed Manufacturer and don't buy one! Why the need to use force to prevent the other 250,000 people who want to from buying one?
We're capable of making decisions based on what the risks are.
And that's wrong. We can only make decisions based on the information that we have. If we don't have the data regarding risks, then we don't know what the risks are, then we cannot make a decision based on the risks.
The issue here isn't that the board caught fire, but rather that in this case Amazon knew they caught fire, but did not provide the information to the buyer.
From the embedded link:
"Fox's case was filled with testimony and evidence illustrating that Amazon execs were concerned about the hoverboards sold on its site. One executive deposed in the case said he'd removed a hoverboard from his house before Christmas after hearing about "potential issues."
I have to agree with the plaintiff. If a store sells a product that they know is defective or dangerous, then they are obligated to clearly warn the buyer, and if possible, warn the previous purchasers. It is perfectly OK to sell the dangerous products that are sold to the public everyday, but they are required to carry warnings.
You go into Home Depot and buy batteries. They have some famous logo on them which may or may not be faked. The batteries catch fire and burn your house down.
You try to find out where Home Depot got the batteries from. They tell you they only have an email address from some supplier overseas. They have total and complete records of all their interactions with YOU but of course can't be bothered to find out if their mythical stock of batteries is real or fake, and they don't have records of where they came from.
Get the point? Dumbass.