The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived claims against Amazon leveled by a man who was seriously burned when his home was destroyed by a Chinese-made hoverboard that caught fire.

The Weecoo-brand hoverboard was not plugged in when its lithium-ion battery caught fire in February 2016, setting plaintiff Irwin Love's house ablaze. Love and his girlfriend managed to  get out, but he suffered burns to his head, face, back and shoulders requiring skin grafts. He also suffered smoke inhalation.

The fire was so hot that Love's gun safe melted, the complaint said.

Love sued Amazon and several foreign co-defendants, including the Chinese manufacturers of the hoverboard, last year in federal court in Atlanta. The co-defendants never responded to the suit.  

Chief Judge Thomas Thrash of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia threw out the case against Amazon in October.

Ruling on Amazon's motion to dismiss, Thrash said there was no evidence it knew the Weecoo hoverboards—which the e-marketing giant no longer carries—were susceptible to bursting into flame at the time of the incident.

Love had argued that Amazon was aware of other instances of such fires, but Thrash said the complaint did not describe “how, when or where defendant Amazon received notice of these incidents and failed to “plead particular facts about any of these incidents, beyond asserting that they were cases in which a hoverboard started a fire.”

But Thursday's per curiam opinion by appellate Judges Beverly Martin and J.L Edmondson said that—at such an early point in the litigation—Love had “alleged enough facts from which one may infer reasonably that Amazon had at least constructive knowledge of the potential risk of fire associated with the hoverboard” and other Chinese-made hoverboards.

Even more important were allegations that, when it sold the product, Amazon had already been notified in writing of four “specific fires that had been caused by hoverboards” it sold.

Love “also alleged that thousands of hoverboards had been seized by United States custom authorities based on concerns about the hoverboards' 'potentially explosive lithium batteries,'” it said.

“We make no determination about the ultimate merit of [Love's] claims against Amazon or whether Amazon before trial may be entitled to judgment on a fuller record,” the opinion said.

Plaintiffs attorney Darren Penn said he was gratified to be able to argue the merits of the remanded case.

“This case is important because of the dangerous climate created by companies like Amazon that provide an open marketplace for literally any individual or company in the world, whether they have met applicable safety standards or not, to sell defective products directly to Americans without any consequences whatsoever,” said Penn via email.

“Although they claim to not actually sell these defective products, they provide the direct path for bogus manufacturers, or manufacturers of knock-off products made with shoddy materials, poor workmanship, and no regard for safety to U.S. citizens,” said Penn, who represents Love with wife and Penn Law colleague Laura Penn and Dreyer & Sterling partner David Dreyer.  

The opinion “reiterated our law that if you know or should have known of dangers associated with those products, you have a duty to act reasonably,” he said. “Reasonable actions include warning people of the dangers or simply not allowing access to the products by unsuspecting buyers.”  

Amazon's counsel includes Hawkins Parnell & Young partners Willie Ellis Jr. and Michael Goldman and W. Brendan Murphy of Perkins Coie in Seattle. Goldman said Amazon would not comment on the pending litigation. 

In reversing Thrash, the appellate opinion said Amazon contented that Love “provided too little detail about the written notifications to Amazon to satisfy the pleading minimum. Under the circumstances of this case, we disagree,” it said.

“Given [Love's] allegations of a defect common to all Chinese-manufactured hoverboards containing lithium-ion batteries, we cannot say that Plaintiff's allegations about the four pre-sale written notifications (although the allegations are silent about the models of hoverboards involved in the fires) are insufficient—as a matter of law—to establish Amazon's actual or constructive knowledge.”

“Accordingly,” the opinion said, “we vacate the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims against Amazon, reverse the district court's grant of Amazon's motion to dismiss, and remand for further proceedings.”