Amazon Back on the Hook for Dog Owner Blinded by Leash

(CN) – Overturning a ruling likening Amazon to a digital classified-ad section, the Third Circuit on Wednesday revived a lawsuit aiming to hold the tech giant liable for a retractable dog leash that left a woman blind in one eye.

“Amazon is a ‘seller’ of products on its website, even though the products are sourced and shipped by third-party vendors such as The Furry Gang,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Richards Roth wrote in a 34-page opinion.

“Amazon’s involvement in transactions extends beyond a mere editorial function; it plays a large role in the actual sales process,” the ruling continues. “This includes receiving customer shipping information, processing customer payments, relaying funds and information to third-party vendors, and collecting the fees it charges for providing these services.”

This subtle distinction will allow dog owner Heather Oberdorf to take billionaire Jeff Bezos’ powerhouse company to trial, where she will seek punitive damages for claims of products liability and negligence stemming from an accident in January 2015.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann granted Amazon summary judgment in December 2017, finding its business model insulated the website from lawsuits of this kind.

“The Amazon Marketplace serves as a sort of newspaper classified ad section, connecting potential consumers with eager sellers in an efficient, modern, streamlined manner,” he wrote.

In a dissent from Wednesday’s opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica found that analogy apt.

“Plaintiffs’ theory would substantially widen what has previously been a narrow exception to the typical rule for identifying products liability defendants sufficiently within the chain of distribution,” Scirica wrote. “A ‘seller’ in Pennsylvania is almost always an actor who transfers ownership from itself to the customer, something Amazon does not do for Marketplace sellers like The Furry Gang.”

Roth was joined in the majority by U.S. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz.

Oberdorf’s attorney David Wilk applauded today’s ruling in a phone interview, saying that, if upheld, it would force Amazon to take steps to protect consumers.

“They recognize that the way the law was being applied was not consistent with the reality of today’s world,” Wilk said, referring to the judges.

The attorney added that Amazon’s third-party sellers are not currently required to carry insurance, and the company does not verify that they maintain legitimate addresses for the service of lawsuits.

“We try and find them, and it’s just in a needle in a stack of needles,” Wilk said, describing his client’s ordeal. “There’s an address in Nevada somewhere, and that leads nowhere.”

As for his client, Wilk noted: “She’s not thrilled to be making precedent.”

“She’d much rather not be blind in her eye,” he added, as his own dog barked in the background of the call.

Amazon’s attorney Laura Hill, an associate at Perkins Coie, did not immediately respond to an email request for comment send after business hours before the July Fourth holiday.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit