논문 도움 2

 

 

 

In Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2020), the plaintiff alleged that a laptop battery she purchased on Amazon.com was defective and caused a fire in her home, resulting in property damage and personal injuries. The plaintiff argued that Amazon.com was liable for the defective product because it had control over the sale and distribution of the product through its platform.

Amazon.com argued that it was not liable for the defective product under Pennsylvania law, which only holds a seller liable if it is "in the business of selling" the product. Amazon.com claimed that it was not a seller of the product, but merely a facilitator of the sale between the third-party seller and the plaintiff.

The court rejected Amazon.com's argument and held that it could be held liable for the defective product under Pennsylvania law. The court found that Amazon.com had "substantial control" over the sale and distribution of the product through its platform, and that it therefore qualified as a "seller" under the law.

The case was significant in that it expanded the potential liability of online marketplaces for the products sold on their platforms, and clarified the level of control necessary for a platform to be considered a "seller" under product liability law.

 

 

Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2020) was a product liability case in which the plaintiff alleged that a defective product purchased on Amazon.com caused a fire in his home. The product in question was a replacement laptop battery sold by a third-party seller on Amazon.com.

The plaintiff sued Amazon.com, alleging that it was liable for the defective product and for failing to warn consumers about the potential danger. Amazon.com argued that it was not liable for the product because it was sold by a third-party seller and that it did not have sufficient control over the product to be held liable.

The court ultimately held that Amazon.com could be held liable for the defective product under Pennsylvania law. The court found that Amazon.com was acting as a seller of the product, despite the fact that it was sold by a third-party seller, because Amazon.com controlled the transaction, set the price, and handled the customer service. The court also found that Amazon.com could be held liable for failing to provide adequate warnings about the potential danger of the product.

This case was significant in that it highlighted the potential liability of online marketplaces for products sold by third-party sellers on their platforms, and the duty of these platforms to ensure the safety of the products they sell. It also demonstrated the importance of providing adequate warnings and information about potentially dangerous products.

 

미국 펜실베이니아주 지방법원에서 심리된 Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2020) 사건은 Amazon.com에서 구매한 결함이 있는 제품이 원고의 집에 화재를 일으켰다는 이유로 고소당한 사례입니다. 이 제품은 Amazon.com의 제3자 판매자가 판매한 대체 노트북 배터리였습니다.

원고는 Amazon.com을 고소하여 결함이 있는 제품에 대한 책임과 소비자들에게 잠재적인 위험에 대한 경고를 제공하지 않았다는 이유로 소송을 제기했습니다. Amazon.com은 제3자 판매자가 판매한 제품이므로 자신은 그 제품에 대한 책임이 없다는 입장을 유지했습니다.

결국 법원은 펜실베이니아주 법률에 따라 Amazon.com이 결함이 있는 제품에 대한 책임을 지게 될 수 있다고 판결했습니다. 법원은 Amazon.com이 거래를 조정하고 가격을 결정하며 고객 서비스를 처리하는 등 제품의 판매자로서의 역할을 수행했다는 이유로 Amazon.com이 제품의 판매자로 행동했다고 판단했습니다. 법원은 또한 Amazon.com이 잠재적인 위험에 대한 충분한 경고를 제공하지 않았다는 이유로 책임을 지게 될 수 있다고 판결했습니다.

이 사건은 제3자 판매자가 자신의 플랫폼에서 판매하는 제품에 대한 온라인 마켓플레이스의 잠재적인 책임과 이러한 플랫폼이 판매하는 제품의 안전을 보장해야 한다는 의무를 강조하는 데 중요한 사례입니다. 또한 잠재적으로 위험한 제품에 대한 충분한 경고와 정보 제공의 중요성을 보여줍니다.

 

 

 

이건 제조물 책임 인정안한 윌리암 이베이 2015 배터리 화재

Williams v. eBay Inc. is a United States Court of Appeals case that was decided in 2015. The case centered around the question of whether eBay could be held liable for a defective product sold on its platform.

In this case, the plaintiff, Brian Williams, had purchased a laptop battery on eBay that exploded and caused him serious injuries. Williams sued eBay, claiming that the company should be held liable for selling the dangerous product. eBay argued that it was not responsible for the product because it was sold by a third-party seller.

The Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in favor of eBay, holding that the company was not liable for the defective product. The court reasoned that eBay was not the seller of the product, and therefore did not have a duty to ensure its safety. The court also noted that eBay had taken steps to remove the product listing after learning of the danger, and had implemented policies to prevent the sale of dangerous products in the future.

The Williams v. eBay case has been cited in subsequent cases involving product liability and online marketplaces. It serves as an example of how courts have struggled to define the responsibilities and liabilities of online marketplaces when it comes to the sale of third-party products.

 

 

 

United States Courts | (uscourts.gov)

United States Courts

 

 

 

 

 

Williams v. eBay Inc., 658 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2011)

 

 

 

음 그런데 chat gpt가 준 판결문 찾기가 어렵다 검색해도 잘 안나옴