## Facts

- Irvin Love bought a Weeco™ self-balancing hoverboard through Amazon.com, Inc. and related Amazon entities.
- The hoverboard was Chinese-manufactured and used a lithium-ion battery.
- Love alleged the hoverboard’s packaging contained no warning about potential fire risks, and Amazon did not provide a fire-risk warning in connection with the sale.
- The hoverboard’s lithium-ion battery allegedly started a fire, injuring Love and destroying his home.
- Love sued companies involved in making, importing, and advertising the hoverboard, including Amazon.
- As to Amazon, Love alleged Amazon was negligent under Georgia law for advertising and selling Chinese-manufactured hoverboards that were known to cause fires.
- Love alleged several fires had resulted from lithium-ion batteries in hoverboards from China, including the model he bought.
- Love also alleged U.S. customs authorities had seized thousands of hoverboards over concerns linked to potentially explosive lithium batteries.
- Love alleged that, before he bought his hoverboard, Amazon already had written notice of four fires caused by hoverboards sold on Amazon’s platform, but his complaint did not identify which hoverboard models were referenced in those notices.
- Amazon moved to dismiss the negligence/failure-to-warn claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Love had not sufficiently alleged Amazon had notice of the danger; the district court dismissed the claims against Amazon, and Love appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Love plausibly alleged, under federal pleading standards, that Amazon had actual or constructive notice of the fire risk associated with the hoverboard (or similar hoverboards) at the time of sale, supporting Georgia negligence and failure-to-warn theories.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Love’s claims against Amazon.
- The court held that, taken as true and viewed together, Love’s allegations plausibly supported an inference that Amazon had actual or constructive knowledge of a fire risk tied to Chinese-manufactured, lithium-ion hoverboards before Love’s purchase.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, stressing that its ruling addressed pleading sufficiency rather than the ultimate merits of Love’s claims.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint survives Rule 12(b)(6) if its well-pleaded factual allegations, accepted as true, plausibly state a claim for relief under Twombly and Iqbal.
- For negligence-based failure-to-warn theories under Georgia law, a plaintiff must plausibly allege the defendant knew or should have known of the product’s danger at the relevant time.
- At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need not provide proof or exhaustive detail about prior incidents; allegations describing prior similar events, combined with allegations of notice to the defendant, can be enough to plead knowledge.
- Allegations that (i) multiple similar products have caused comparable harm, (ii) the defendant received pre-sale written notice of such events, and (iii) government action reflected known safety concerns may collectively support a plausible inference of actual or constructive notice.

## Conclusion

Love v. Weeco™ holds that Love’s allegations—prior hoverboard fires involving Chinese-manufactured, lithium-ion devices, customs seizures, and Amazon’s alleged pre-sale written notice of four hoverboard fires—were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to plausibly plead Amazon’s notice of the risk, requiring reversal of the dismissal and a remand for further proceedings.


Love v. Weeco™, 774 Fed. Appx. 519 (2019)