Negligence

What Is Negligence?

In a negligence action, Amazon generally files suit against a party who negligently performs under a contract or agreement. In Amazon.com v. Coyote Logistics, Amazon alleged negligence among other claims due to a failed transport of Amazon Kindles that were left unattended.1 The unattended goods resulted in theft.2 Amazon alleged this negligence and the court agreed that Amazon was entitled to damages amounting to $1,447,023.20.3 According to Black’s Law Dictionary, negligence is defined as,

The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly, or willfully disregardful of others’ rights; the doing of what a reasonable and prudent person would not do under the particular circumstances, or the failure to do what such a person would do under the circumstances. The elements necessary to recover damages for negligence are (1) the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury complained of, and (2) an injury to the plaintiff from the defendant’s failure.

However, parties have also filed suit against Amazon. In these situations, Amazon often motions to dismiss the claim or for summary judgment for failure to state claim.

  1. Amazon.com v. Coyote Logistics Case No. C11-1015 RSL, United States District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle, December 11, 2013.
  4. Spears v. Amazon, No. 10-325-GFVT, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18384 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2013).
  • Amazon.com v. Coyote Logistics Case No. C11-1015 RSL, United States District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle, December 11, 2013.

In this case, plaintiff, Amazon alleged that CP Transport was hired to transport a container of Amazon Kindles from Washington to Delaware in November 2009. Amazon alleged that the driver left the shipment unattended at a truck stop, resulting in the theft of the truck, container, and goods. The court awarded damages for negligence in favor of Amazon.

  • Cox v. Brand 44, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143120, 2015 WL 6182469 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2015).

This is a negligence and wrongful death suit brought by the estate of MJ Cox following his death due to a zip line accident. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in part, and denied in part. The court denied the motion to dismiss pain and suffering, breach of warranties and loss of consortium but granted in regards to punitive damages and strict liability.

  • Hinton v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172245, 2013 WL 6384601 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 6, 2013).

In this case, plaintiff filed against defendants alleging that they sold her hunting equipment that had been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). She decided to buy the hunting equipment subject to recall. Her son had subsequently died in a hunting accident. The court denied the Motion for Immediate Hearing for Permanent Injunction as the Plaintiff failed to prove that her case would be an actual success on the merits and merely showed a likelihood of success.

  • Hinton v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24426 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 26, 2014).

In this case, plaintiff filed against defendants alleging that they sold her hunting equipment that had been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). She decided to buy the hunting equipment subject to recall. Her son had subsequently died in a hunting accident. The court granted the Motion for Additional Time to Respond to the Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Summary Judgment as it was found to be brought with good cause and was filed in a timely manner.

  • Hinton v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137243 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 29, 2014).

In this case, plaintiff filed against defendants alleging that they sold her hunting equipment that had been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). She decided to buy the hunting equipment subject to recall. Her son had subsequently died in a hunting accident. The court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion in Limine, as it determined it will simply not consider the Report Plaintiff intended to strike and the Motion in Limine was done prematurely. The court granted her Motion for Permission to File Surrebuttal Brief as it determined that the court could consider the competing arguments and position in the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the other defendants.

  • Hobbs v. Rui Zhao, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161533 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 17, 2014).

Zhao was a commercial driver in the U.S. for four weeks when he drove to an Amazon distribution center in Kentucky to pick up cargo. Plaintiff got into an accident and the plaintiff suffered serious injuries. The court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint to add two more defendants, as the deadline has passed and he had not shown why he did not add these defendants at a prior time. Therefore, the court is lead to believe that he did so in bad faith, and therefore did not allow this amendment.

  • Hobbs v. Rui Zhao, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11762 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 2, 2015).

Zhao was a commercial driver in the U.S. for four weeks when he drove to an Amazon distribution center in Kentucky to pick up cargo. Zhao got into an accident and as a result, plaintiff suffered serious injuries. The court granted summary judgment to Amazon in relation to the negligent entrustment claim, as Plaintiff failed to prove that the cargo was a dangerous instrumentality and that Amazon owed plaintiff a duty of care. Additionally, summary judgment was granted to the negligent hiring claim, as Amazon did not select Zhao to perform the task. Amazon was dismissed from the case.

  • Spears v. Amazon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18384, 34 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1783, 27 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1430 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2013).

Amazon.com was a defendant in a negligent misrepresentation suit. Amazon motioned for summary judgment. Plaintiff claimed that Amazon “fraudulently induced him to accept a position of employment in the company, or in the least negligently misrepresented the nature of compensation of the employment; that Amazon inappropriately terminated him on the basis of his disability in retaliation for a worker’s compensation claim, and in transgression of public policy.” United States District Court denied Amazon’s motion for summary judgment for the fraud claims in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and workers’ compensation. The court granted Amazon’s motion for summary judgment for the claims of wrongful discharge on the basis of disability and in violation of public policy. The court found that Spears had created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not Amazon made the offer to Spears in reckless disregard of its falsity.