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.
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.