Insights
Day Pitney remains committed to providing quality legal counsel, while protecting our clients and employees, and transforming our communities into more just, equal and equitable spaces. For more information, please visit our COVID-19 Resource Center | Racial Justice and Equity Task Force.
James Rotondo and Andrew Ammirati co-authored the article, "Ohio: 'Control' determines whether Amazon is subject to strict liability," for Westlaw Today. The article discusses the recent Stiner v. Amazon.com decision in Ohio and how it compares to the August Bolger v. Amazon.com ruling in California, which they covered in "May Amazon be held liable in strict products liability?"
In Stiner v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2019-0488, the court concluded that Amazon was not a "supplier" within the meaning of Ohio's products liability statutes, and therefore could not be held strictly liable. The appellant, Dennis Stiner, brought suit on behalf of his 18-year-old son, Logan Stiner, who died after ingestion of a fatal dose of caffeine powder obtained from a friend, who previously conducted a search for "pre-workout" on Amazon's website. The product was sold from a third-party vendor, which posted the product on Amazon's website.
Stiner brought claims under the Ohio Products Liability Act, which subjects suppliers to product liability in certain circumstances.
Read more here.
