La. Law Protects Amazon From Liability for Exploding Earbuds, Says Its Answer

Amazon denies claims of negligence and breach of warranty in plaintiff Edna Bowles’ April 26 complaint over allegedly defective Bluetooth earbuds she bought from Amazon (see 2304270062), said Amazon’s answer Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00317) in U.S. District Court for Middle Louisiana in Baton Rouge. Amazon also denies it bears “any burden of proof as to any” of the allegations, it said.

Bowles alleges she was using Hinycom earbuds manufactured by Shenzhen Dayantian when the buds’ case, which was in her pocket, “exploded in flames,” causing third-degree burns to her left hip, thigh and hand. Her claims for “redhibition” and negligence are “subsumed” by the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), said Amazon’s answer. But the complaint “fails to state a cause of action against Amazon” under the statute, it said.

To the extent Bowles’ claims are based on an alleged defect in a product that Amazon didn’t design or manufacture, Amazon doesn’t qualify as a manufacturer “for purposes of liability” under the LPLA, said Amazon’s answer. The company also denies it qualifies as a seller under the statute, it said. Even if Amazon is considered a manufacturer or seller, which it denies, it said it's not liable for Bowles’ alleged damages “because the products at issue were not unreasonably dangerous.”

Louisiana law “protects Amazon from liability,” said its answer. Amazon wasn’t the manufacturer and had no control over products it didn’t design, manufacture or sell, it said. But even if it had, “any unreasonably dangerous condition” didn’t exist “at the time such products left Amazon’s control,” it said. Also, any unreasonably dangerous condition “resulted from an alteration or modification of the product that Amazon could not reasonably anticipate,” it said. The company also couldn’t have known of the “design characteristic” that caused the damage, it said.

Amazon didn’t owe a “duty of care” to Bowles for the products it didn’t design, manufacture or sell, said its answer. Even if it did owe a duty, Amazon didn’t breach it, it said. No act or omission of Amazon was the cause of Bowles’ alleged injuries or damages, it said. To the extent that Bowles’ claims against the company are based on third-party content, they're barred by the Communications Decency Act, it said.

The damages and recovery sought in the complaint “were caused or contributed to by the comparative negligence or fault” of Bowles, other parties or other non-parties “for whom Amazon has no legal responsibility,” said Amazon’s answer. The damages she allegedly sustained were caused by preexisting conditions or “intervening” or “superseding” incidents “for which Amazon has no responsibility,” it said. If liability is imposed, Amazon “is entitled to a set-off or credit for any benefits” Bowles receives for her alleged injuries, it said.