Can a Telehealth Visit Lead to a Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

When a death is caused by another party’s wrongful act or negligence, California law allows a wrongful death lawsuit, and that can include medical care delivered by video. A California family has now filed such a lawsuit alleging a telehealth visit missed the signs of a medical emergency.

Case: Tong, et al. v. Amazon, dba One Medical, et al.

Court: Superior Court of California, County of Alameda

Case No.: 24CV094128

The family of Philip Tong, a 45-year-old father of two, sued Amazon One Medical in Alameda County Superior Court after he collapsed and died in an Oakland emergency room hours after a video appointment.

The pending wrongful death lawsuit raises questions that matter to families and to workers who rely on employer-provided health services.

What Happened to Philip Tong?

According to the lawsuit, Tong had a history of diabetes and had shown flu-like symptoms for a week until December 18, 2023, when he began coughing up blood, was short of breath, and his feet had turned blue. Tong underwent a video consultation with One Medical and was advised to buy an inhaler. Hours after the telemedical consultation, he collapsed in an Oakland emergency room and died.

The complaint alleges that if Tong had received proper care, treatment, and follow-up that day, he would have survived.

Who Filed the Lawsuit, and Who Is Named in It?

Tong’s wife and two daughters filed the case on October 1, 2024, in Alameda County Superior Court. The lawsuit names Amazon One Medical, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, and Aurelia A. Cheng, M.D. According to the Times, it alleges Tong had contacted the hospital the day before he collapsed and told it about his symptoms. Amazon completed its purchase of One Medical in early 2023.

Philip Tong's family alleges that both One Medical and medical providers at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center failed to appropriately respond to his deteriorating condition in the days and hours before his death. The claims against One Medical focus in part on a December 18 telehealth visit during which the family alleges serious symptoms were not appropriately escalated to emergency care.

The family later amended the lawsuit to add medical-privacy claims after One Medical disclosed that employees had improperly accessed Tong's records.

What Does Amazon One Medical Say?

Amazon One Medical has declined to publicly discuss Tong's specific medical care, citing patient-privacy restrictions. In court, however, Amazon has denied the family's wrongful-death allegations.

What Has the Court Decided So Far?

Court listings classify the case as a civil medical malpractice matter in Alameda County, and the case was still pending as of April 2026.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Families?

This Alameda County case highlights the serious consequences families can face when an urgent medical condition is allegedly missed or not appropriately escalated. The lawsuit centers on whether Philip Tong received adequate care from the medical providers he contacted in the hours before his death, including during a telehealth appointment with One Medical.

Telehealth has become a common way for patients to access medical care, but virtual treatment still requires providers to recognize symptoms that may signal an emergency and determine when in-person evaluation or emergency care is necessary. Tong’s family alleges that his worsening symptoms—including shortness of breath, coughing up blood, and discoloration of his feet—should have prompted more urgent intervention.

The case also illustrates the financial and personal consequences a sudden death can have on surviving family members. California wrongful death law allows certain relatives to seek compensation for losses that may include lost financial support, funeral expenses, and the loss of companionship, care, and support. Whether the defendants were legally responsible for Tong’s death remains for the litigation to determine.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Who can file a wrongful death lawsuit in California?
A: California law identifies who may bring a wrongful death claim. This generally includes a surviving spouse or domestic partner and children, and in some situations other relatives or individuals who would be entitled to inherit from the person who died.

Q: What can a family recover in a wrongful death case?
A: Families may seek compensation for certain economic losses, such as lost financial support and funeral expenses, as well as non-economic losses including the loss of companionship, care, comfort, and support. Different rules may apply when the claim involves a health care provider.

Q: How long do families have to file a wrongful death claim in California?
A: California imposes strict filing deadlines. Claims involving alleged medical malpractice can be subject to different timing rules than other wrongful death cases, so families should speak with an attorney promptly about the deadline that applies to their situation.

Q: Are telehealth providers responsible for recognizing medical emergencies?
A: Telehealth providers are still expected to meet the applicable standard of care. Depending on the circumstances, that can include recognizing symptoms that may require in-person evaluation, additional testing, or emergency treatment.

Q: Can more than one medical provider be named in a wrongful death lawsuit?
A: Yes. A wrongful death or medical malpractice case may involve multiple providers if the family alleges that more than one person or organization contributed to the harm. Each defendant’s conduct and potential responsibility must be evaluated separately.

Q: Does filing a wrongful death lawsuit mean the medical provider has been found negligent?
A: No. A complaint contains allegations that must be proven through the legal process. Unless the case is resolved by a court ruling or verdict, the filing of a lawsuit alone does not establish that a provider was negligent or legally responsible for the death.

Do you have questions about a wrongful death claim in California? Don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, and Los Angeles.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Challenges Decades-Old Government Medical Research Practices

A recently filed federal wrongful death lawsuit alleges that two Black infants were unknowingly used in an experimental RSV vaccine study conducted during the 1960s. The case raises significant questions regarding informed consent, government accountability, medical ethics, and the rights of vulnerable research participants.

Case: Sharlette Hambrick et al. v. United States of America

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Case No.: 1:26-cv-01793

Who are the Plaintiffs in the Case?

The plaintiffs are Sharlette Hambrick, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Ross Otto Hambrick, and Darius King, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Victor Marcellus King. They filed the lawsuit on behalf of the estates of two Black infants who allegedly participated in an NIH respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine study during the 1960s without the informed consent of their parents. The plaintiffs seek to hold the United States accountable for the alleged conduct and its lasting impact on the affected families.

The Defendant: Facing Allegations of Labor Law Violations

The defendant is the United States of America. The wrongful death lawsuit was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows certain claims to be filed against the federal government for alleged wrongful acts or negligence by federal agencies or employees. Although the allegations involve NIH-sponsored RSV vaccine research, the federal government is the named defendant because the plaintiffs seek to hold the United States legally responsible for the alleged conduct and resulting harm.

What are the Allegations in the Case?

The plaintiffs allege that two infants were used in federally sponsored RSV vaccine research without their parents’ informed consent. According to the complaint, the lawsuit raises claims involving wrongful death, medical negligence, and the alleged failure to disclose the nature and risks of the research.

The complaint alleges:

• Wrongful death

• Lack of informed consent

• Civil battery

• Medical negligence and government negligence

• Unauthorized human-subject experimentation

• Failure to disclose risks associated with the research

• Use of tissue samples without family knowledge or consent

Because this case involves allegations against the federal government, the lawsuit also raises broader questions about medical ethics, accountability, and the legal protections available to families affected by government-sponsored research.

Why This Lawsuit Has Drawn National Attention

Unlike many employment and civil rights cases, Hambrick et al. v. United States centers on events that allegedly occurred more than half a century ago. According to the complaint, two Black infants—Ross Otto Hambrick and Victor Marcellus King—were enrolled in an experimental NIH-sponsored RSV vaccine study during the 1960s without their parents' knowledge or informed consent. The lawsuit further alleges that both children died in January 1967 and that tissue samples obtained during their autopsies were later used in research connected to the development of modern RSV vaccines.

The case has drawn significant national attention because it raises allegations involving informed consent, government accountability, medical ethics, and historical human-subject research. It also highlights the legal challenges that can arise when families seek answers and accountability decades after the alleged events.

Seeking Legal Resolution: Major Issues the Court Must Consider

The central legal question in Hambrick et al. v. United States is:

Can the families pursue wrongful death, lack of informed consent, civil battery, and negligence claims against the federal government for alleged medical research misconduct that occurred nearly 60 years ago?

Because the lawsuit remains in its early stages, the court has not yet ruled on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. Before the case can proceed, the court will likely need to address several significant legal issues, including whether the claims are permitted under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), whether they are barred by applicable statutes of limitations or preserved under delayed-discovery principles, and how sovereign immunity affects the plaintiffs' ability to sue the federal government. The court may also be required to evaluate allegations involving informed consent, causation, and the government's potential liability for the alleged conduct.

Why This Case Matters to California Families

Although Hambrick et al. v. United States is not an employment law case, it raises legal issues that are important to California families. The lawsuit highlights fundamental questions about informed consent, government accountability, medical negligence, and the legal remedies available when individuals allege harm from institutional misconduct.

The case also illustrates the complex legal challenges that can arise when families seek justice for alleged wrongful conduct that occurred decades earlier. While every case depends on its specific facts, California law recognizes claims involving wrongful death, medical negligence, and other serious injuries when individuals or institutions fail to uphold their legal duties. For families confronting similar issues, understanding their legal rights—and the deadlines that may apply—is often an important first step.

The Key Takeaway from this Wrongful Death Case

Hambrick et al. v. United States highlights the profound legal and ethical questions that can arise when families seek accountability for alleged government misconduct decades after the underlying events occurred. While the court has not yet ruled on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, the lawsuit underscores the importance of informed consent, transparency in medical research, and the legal remedies available when individuals allege that negligence or wrongful conduct resulted in serious injury or death. The case also illustrates the complex procedural challenges that often accompany claims against the federal government, including issues involving sovereign immunity, statutes of limitation, and the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Frequently Asked Questions About Wrongful Death and Government Liability

Q: What is a wrongful death claim?

A: A wrongful death claim is a civil lawsuit brought by certain surviving family members or a personal representative when a person's death is alleged to have been caused by another party's negligent, reckless, or wrongful conduct. These claims seek compensation for losses resulting from the death.

Q: What is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)?

A: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a federal law that allows individuals to pursue certain claims against the United States for negligence or wrongful acts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The FTCA includes specific procedural requirements and filing deadlines that differ from those in ordinary civil lawsuits.

Q: What is informed consent in medical treatment or medical research?

A: Informed consent generally requires that patients or research participants—or their legally authorized representatives—receive sufficient information about the nature of a medical procedure or study, its potential risks and benefits, and available alternatives before agreeing to participate.

Q: Can families bring legal claims years after the alleged misconduct occurred?

A: In some situations, yes. Whether a claim may proceed depends on many factors, including applicable statutes of limitations, delayed-discovery rules, and any exceptions under state or federal law. These issues are often among the first questions courts must resolve.

Q: Can the federal government be sued for negligence?

A: In certain circumstances, yes. Although the federal government generally enjoys sovereign immunity, the Federal Tort Claims Act establishes limited exceptions that permit qualifying negligence claims to proceed when statutory requirements are met.

Q: When should someone consult an attorney about a potential wrongful death or government liability claim?

A: Individuals should consider consulting an attorney as soon as possible if they believe a loved one's death or serious injury resulted from negligence, medical misconduct, or the actions of a government agency. Early legal guidance can help preserve evidence, identify applicable filing deadlines, and protect important legal rights.

Compassionate Legal Representation for Wrongful Death and Medical Negligence Claims

Losing a loved one because of another party's alleged negligence or wrongful conduct can have lifelong emotional and financial consequences. If you believe your family has been affected by medical negligence, government misconduct, or another act that may have resulted in a wrongful death, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, can evaluate your potential claims, explain your legal options, and help you pursue the accountability and compensation available under California law.

Kern County Civil Rights Wrongful Death Lawsuit Raises Questions About Care and Supervision of Minor

A federal civil rights lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of California centers on the death of a minor identified in court records as A.P. The case, filed against the County of Kern and additional defendants, includes wrongful death and constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Case: Perez et al. v. County of Kern et al.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Federal Case No.: 1:25-cv-00358

The Plaintiffs: Perez et al. v. County of Kern et al.

According to the court-supported order, Ashley Sinden filed claims as the natural parent and purported successor in interest of decedent minor Alejandro Andres Perez, identified in the order as A.P.

The lawsuit seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged actions and/or failures involving the care, custody, control, and supervision of A.P. while under the defendants’ supervision.

The plaintiffs allege that those actions and/or failures resulted in the wrongful death of the minor. The court-supported materials reviewed for this case study do not independently verify additional factual allegations beyond those identified in the federal order.

The Defendants: Perez et al. v. County of Kern et al.

The wrongful death lawsuit names the County of Kern and additional defendants identified in the case caption.

Civil rights litigation involving governmental entities often centers on questions concerning constitutional protections, supervisory responsibilities, and alleged failures involving individuals in public custody or under governmental oversight. Cases involving minors frequently receive especially close scrutiny because of the legal duties associated with care and supervision.

The federal court order reviewed in this matter focused on procedural issues involving litigation competency and guardian ad litem appointment standards rather than the underlying factual merits of the wrongful death allegations.

A History of the Case: Perez et al. v. County of Kern et al.

The litigation is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under Case No. 1:25-cv-00358.

A significant procedural ruling occurred on July 21, 2025, when the federal court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint Clayton Nunley as guardian ad litem for Ashley Sinden.

According to the court’s order, the materials submitted in support of the motion did not establish that Sinden was legally incompetent or unable to understand and participate in the litigation. As a result, the court denied the request without prejudice, meaning the issue could potentially be revisited with additional supporting evidence or information.

The order also set a scheduling conference for August 13, 2025, as litigation continued in federal court.

The Main Question Being Considered: Perez et al. v. County of Kern et al.

The underlying lawsuit involves constitutional and wrongful death claims arising from alleged actions and/or failures while A.P. was under the defendants’ care, custody, control, and supervision.

The July 21, 2025 order addressed a narrower procedural question: whether Ashley Sinden was required to appoint a guardian ad litem to participate in the litigation. Federal courts may appoint guardians ad litem when a party is legally incompetent or otherwise unable to protect their interests during litigation proceedings.

The court’s ruling did not determine liability or decide whether constitutional violations or wrongful death claims will ultimately succeed.

Why This Case Matters: Perez et al. v. County of Kern et al.

Wrongful death and Section 1983 lawsuits involving minors under governmental supervision often raise significant constitutional and public-policy concerns. Cases of this nature may involve questions regarding oversight responsibilities, care standards, and governmental accountability.

The litigation also highlights an important procedural aspect of federal civil rights cases: courts carefully evaluate whether litigants are capable of participating in legal proceedings before appointing guardians ad litem.

For families pursuing civil rights claims, the case reflects the procedural and constitutional issues that frequently arise in federal wrongful death litigation involving public entities and minors.

FAQ: Perez et al. v. County of Kern et al.

Q: What is the Perez v. County of Kern lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit involves wrongful death and federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 connected to the death of a minor identified in court records as A.P.

Q: Who filed the lawsuit?

A: Ashley Sinden filed claims as the natural parent and purported successor in interest of decedent minor Alejandro Andres Perez.

Q: What did the federal court decide in July 2025?

A: On July 21, 2025, the court denied without prejudice a motion seeking the appointment of Clayton Nunley as guardian ad litem for Ashley Sinden.

Q: Why did the court deny the guardian ad litem request?

A: According to the order, the submitted materials did not establish that Sinden was legally incompetent or unable to understand and participate in the litigation.

Q: Did the court rule on whether constitutional violations or wrongful death occurred?

A: No. The July 21, 2025 ruling addressed only the guardian ad litem request and did not resolve the merits of the underlying claims.

If you have questions about wrongful death litigation, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Can a Spouse Sue an Employer After a Workplace COVID-19 Infection Spreads at Home?

A California Supreme Court decision held that a spouse’s negligence claim was not automatically barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity, but it also concluded that employers do not owe a duty of care to employees’ household members to prevent the spread of COVID-19. (law.justia.com)

Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc. (Cal. 2023)

Court: Northern District of California / Supreme Court of California

Case/Docket No.: 3:20-cv-09355-MMC / S274191

An Overview of the Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The case arose from allegations that Victory Woodworks failed to follow required COVID-19 precautions at a San Francisco construction site during the early months of the pandemic. The complaint alleged that after Robert Kuciemba began working at the site, Victory transferred workers from another location where they may have been exposed to the virus without taking the precautions required by the county health order. Robert allegedly contracted COVID-19 after working in close contact with those workers and then carried the virus home to his wife, Corby.

Corby’s alleged injuries were severe. According to the California Supreme Court’s summary of the pleadings, she was hospitalized for several weeks and, at one point, was kept alive on a respirator. Corby sued Victory for negligence, negligence per se, and premises liability, while Robert asserted a loss-of-consortium claim. The federal district court dismissed the case, and the dispute eventually reached the California Supreme Court through certified questions from the Ninth Circuit.

The Legal Problem That Caused the Case to Proceed to the California Supreme Court

The first legal issue was whether California’s Workers’ Compensation Act barred Corby’s negligence claim as a derivative of Robert’s workplace injury. Workers’ compensation law generally makes compensation the exclusive remedy for injuries to employees and, in some circumstances, bars third-party claims that are collateral to or derivative of an employee’s work injury. The question was whether Corby’s own illness fit inside that exclusivity framework.

The second issue was whether an employer owes a duty of care to a worker’s household members to prevent take-home transmission of COVID-19. The California Supreme Court recognized that this was a major duty question, not just a fact dispute. Even if household infection were foreseeable, the Court still had to decide whether California's negligence law should recognize an entire category of claims by nonemployees allegedly infected through workplace exposure that was brought home by workers.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity

The California Supreme Court first held that workers’ compensation exclusivity did not bar Corby’s negligence claim. The Court explained that the derivative injury doctrine bars a third party’s claim only when injury to the employee is part of a legal element of the third party’s own cause of action. A loss of consortium claim is barred for that reason because it depends on proving tortious injury to the spouse. But Corby’s negligence claim for her own COVID-19 illness was different. Her injury was not legally dependent on Robert’s injury, even though the same alleged negligence may have led to both.

The Court then turned to duty and reached the opposite result on that issue. Applying California’s negligence framework, the Court acknowledged that household transmission of COVID-19 was foreseeable. But it concluded that broader policy considerations weighed against imposing a duty of care on employers to prevent the virus from spreading to employees’ household members. The Court emphasized concerns about the potentially vast and unpredictable scope of liability, the difficulty of drawing workable lines around who qualifies as a household member or close contact, and the heavy burden such liability could impose on employers and society during a pandemic.

That holding created an important modern California precedent. Kuciemba makes clear that a family member’s claim is not automatically barred simply because the employee’s injury occurred at work, but it also shows that surviving exclusivity does not end the analysis. A plaintiff still must establish a duty of care, and in the context of take-home COVID-19 transmission, the California Supreme Court held that no such duty exists.

Why the Case Matters for California Law:

This case matters because it clarifies two concepts that are easily conflated: workers’ compensation exclusivity and the duty of care. The Court rejected a broad reading of the derivative injury doctrine that would have automatically blocked Corby’s claim. That part of the decision is important for plaintiffs in wrongful death and negligence cases involving injuries to family members that are connected to, but not legally dependent on, an employee’s workplace injury.

At the same time, the decision is equally important for defendants because it limits tort exposure in the take-home COVID context. The Court’s duty analysis signals that even where transmission to a household member is foreseeable, California courts may decline to impose a duty when the policy consequences of recognizing liability are too broad or administratively unworkable.

For present-day litigants, Kuciemba is a major California precedent on negligence, duty, exclusivity, and household-injury claims. It is especially relevant when a plaintiff argues that an employer’s workplace conduct harmed someone outside the employment relationship, and the defense argues either workers’ compensation exclusivity or lack of duty.

FAQ About the Kuciemba Take-Home COVID Negligence Case

Q: What was the main issue in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.?

A: The case addressed two main issues: whether workers’ compensation exclusivity barred a spouse’s negligence claim based on take-home COVID transmission, and whether an employer owes a duty of care to household members to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Q: What did the plaintiffs allege happened?

A: They alleged that Victory failed to follow required COVID-19 precautions at a construction site, Robert contracted the virus at work, and he then infected his wife Corby at home, causing her serious illness.

Q: Did the California Supreme Court say Corby’s negligence claim was barred by workers’ compensation law?

A: No. The Court held that her negligence claim was not barred by the derivative injury doctrine because her injury was not legally dependent on proving injury to Robert as an element of her own negligence claim.

Q: Did the Court still allow the negligence claim to go forward?

A: No. Even though exclusivity did not bar the claim, the Court held that employers do not owe a duty of care to employees’ household members to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Q: Why did the Court reject a duty of care?

A: The Court pointed to policy concerns, including the potentially enormous and uncertain scope of liability, difficulties in defining the outer limits of exposure, and the broader burdens such a rule would place on employers and society during a pandemic.

Q: What is the difference between exclusivity and duty in this case?

A: Exclusivity asks whether workers’ compensation law blocks the tort claim altogether. Duty asks whether negligence law imposes a legal obligation on the defendant toward the plaintiff. In Kuciemba, the claim survived the first question but failed on the second.

Q: Why is Kuciemba important for wrongful death and negligence cases?

A: It is important because it clarifies that family-member claims tied to workplace injuries are not always automatically barred as derivative, while also reinforcing that plaintiffs still must establish an actionable duty of care.

Q: Is Kuciemba limited only to COVID-19 cases?

A: The specific duty holding addressed take-home COVID-19 transmission, but the Court’s analysis of derivative injury and duty has broader significance in California negligence litigation. That broader significance is an inference based on the opinion’s legal framework.

Not every workplace-related injury will be handled the same way under California law. Some claims may survive workers’ compensation exclusivity analysis but still fail if the court declines to recognize a duty of care. If you lost a loved one or suffered serious harm tied to another person’s workplace exposure and need to understand how California negligence and wrongful death law may apply, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can assess whether the facts of your case support a viable claim.

Can Amazon Be Held Liable After Families Allege It Sold a “Suicide Kit” Through Its Platform?

Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc. is a closely watched wrongful death and product-liability case that considers whether Amazon can face negligence claims after four people died by suicide using high-purity sodium nitrite purchased through the major online retailer’s website. In February 2026, the Washington Supreme Court held that suicide is not automatically a superseding cause at the pleading stage and allowed the families’ product-seller negligence claims under Washington law to move forward.

Case: Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Court: Washington State Supreme Court

Case No. 103730-9

Family Members Filed a Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Amazon:

The plaintiffs are family members and personal representatives of the estates of four decedents: Mikael Scott, Tyler Muhleman, Demetrios Viglis, and Ava Passannanti. The opinion identifies Ruth Scott, Jeff Muhleman, Cindy Cruz, Mary Ellen Viglis, James Passannanti, and Annette Gallego as the petitioners who brought the lawsuits on their own behalf and on behalf of the estates. According to the court, the underlying suits were filed after each decedent purchased high-purity sodium nitrite through Amazon’s website and later died from sodium nitrite poisoning. The plaintiffs allege Amazon’s sales and recommendation practices increased the risk of harm and contributed to the deaths.

The Defendant in the Wrongful Death Case is Amazon

The defendant is Amazon.com, Inc. The Washington Supreme Court opinion describes Amazon as the online seller through whose website the decedents purchased the sodium nitrite products at issue, specifically Loudwolf Sodium Nitrite and HiMedia GRM417-500G Sodium Nitrite. The plaintiffs allege Amazon continued selling high-purity sodium nitrite without age verification or adequate warnings, and recommended related products that could facilitate suicide.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc.

The plaintiffs alleged Amazon sold 98.0 to 99.6 percent pure sodium nitrite on its platform even though, according to the complaints, there was no legitimate household use for such high-purity sodium nitrite, and Amazon knew it was being used in suicides. They also alleged Amazon recommended related products such as Tagamet, small scales, and The Peaceful Pill Handbook, and sent reminder emails tied to those products, effectively helping create what critics described as a “suicide kit.” The complaints further alleged Amazon had been warned through parents, consumer reports, poison data trends, and a March 17, 2021, FDA letter that the product had been used for suicide, yet it continued to allow sales through other brands. The plaintiffs also contended the warnings shown to consumers were inadequate because the labels did not properly disclose the product’s lethality or explain how to reverse its effects if ingested.

Define Superseding Cause: A superseding cause is an event so significant that it breaks the legal chain between a defendant’s conduct and the harm that followed. In this case, the key issue was whether suicide always cuts off liability as a matter of law in a negligence-based product liability claim.

What Is Product Seller Negligence? Product seller negligence is a claim that a company that sells a product acted carelessly in a way that caused harm, even if it did not manufacture the product. Here, the Washington Supreme Court held the families had pleaded enough facts to pursue negligence claims against Amazon under the Washington Product Liability Act.

Considering the Main Question in the Case:

The central question in Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc. was whether suicide automatically bars a negligence claim by acting as a superseding cause under Washington law. Amazon argued the decedents’ suicides broke the chain of causation and therefore prevented recovery as a matter of law. The Washington Supreme Court rejected that broad rule at the motion-to-dismiss stage, explaining that foreseeability and proximate cause are generally questions for the fact finder and that the plaintiffs had alleged enough to proceed. The decision means the families may continue litigating whether Amazon’s sales, recommendations, and warning practices negligently increased the risk of the very harm that occurred.

FAQ: Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Q: What is Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc. about?

A: It is a Washington wrongful death and product liability case brought by the families of four people who died by suicide after ingesting high purity sodium nitrite purchased through Amazon’s website. The plaintiffs allege Amazon negligently sold and promoted the product despite knowing it was being used for suicide.

Q: What did the Washington Supreme Court decide?

A: The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s denial of Amazon’s motions to dismiss. It held that suicide is not always a superseding cause as a matter of law at the pleading stage and that the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to state a negligence claim under the Washington Product Liability Act.

Q: What products were involved in the case?

A: The opinion identifies two sodium nitrite products sold through Amazon’s website: Loudwolf Sodium Nitrite and HiMedia GRM417-500G Sodium Nitrite. The court noted allegations that these products were 98.0% to 99.6% pure.

Q: Why did the families say Amazon should have foreseen the danger?

A: The plaintiffs alleged Amazon had been warned through grieving parents, one-star reviews, poison data trends, regulatory alerts, and an FDA letter that sodium nitrite sold through the platform was being used in suicides. They also alleged Amazon recommended companion products associated with suicide methods and continued sales after those warnings.

Q: Does this ruling mean Amazon is liable?

A: No. The ruling does not decide liability. It only means the plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently pleaded to survive dismissal and move forward.

Q: Why might this case matter beyond Washington?

A: The decision is significant because it rejects a categorical rule that suicide always ends proximate cause analysis at the outset of a case. That could influence how courts and litigants think about platform liability, product warnings, and foreseeability when online product suggestion algorithms allegedly contribute to dangerous conduct.

If you have questions about wrongful death, product liability, or whether a company’s conduct may have contributed to a preventable death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn more about your legal options.

OpenAI Faces Wrongful Death and Product Liability Claims Over Teen’s ChatGPT Use

A California family recently filed a lawsuit after the death of their son. In the wrongful death complaint, the Raines alleged that the design and safety failures of ChatGPT contributed to their teenage son’s death. The wrongful death suit raised high-stakes questions about AI product liability, warnings, and safeguards for minors.

Case: Matthew Raine and Maria Raine v. OpenAI, Inc.

Court: California Superior Court, County of San Francisco

Case No.: CGC-25-628528

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Raine v. OpenAI

Matthew Raine and Maria Raine, the plaintiffs, filed a wrongful death lawsuit after the death of their son, Adam Raine. According to the lawsuit, the Raines allege Adam began using ChatGPT (GPT-4o) in September 2024, and quickly developed a deep dependence on it. Less than a year later, he died by suicide on April 11, 2025, just 16 years old. They filed this action seeking damages related to Adam’s death and injunctive relief requiring additional safeguards for minors and other vulnerable users of the popular AI tool.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendants in the case include OpenAI, Inc.; OpenAI OpCo, LLC; OpenAI Holdings, LLC; and Samuel Altman, along with unnamed “Doe” employees and investors. The complaint alleges the OpenAI entities collectively designed, commercialized, and controlled the ChatGPT product at issue and that Altman, as CEO, directed key product and safety decisions related to GPT-4o’s launch and deployment.

The Plaintiffs Included Numerous Allegations in the Wrongful Death Lawsuit:

• The product allegedly encouraged a dependent, confidant-style relationship with a minor and failed to disengage during a mental-health crisis.

• The complaint alleges ChatGPT responded in ways that affirmed or prolonged discussions about self-harm rather than consistently refusing and redirecting to appropriate help.

• Plaintiffs allege OpenAI had the technical ability to detect high-risk self-harm content and terminate or meaningfully intervene, but did not do so in this instance.

• Plaintiffs claim GPT-4o’s design emphasized engagement-maximizing features (including “memory” and human-like interaction cues) that increased minors' vulnerability.

• The complaint alleges OpenAI rushed safety testing and released GPT-4o with insufficient safeguards, despite foreseeable risks to vulnerable users.

• Plaintiffs assert OpenAI failed to provide adequate warnings to teens and parents about risks such as psychological dependency and exposure to harmful outputs.

• The lawsuit asserts claims including strict product liability (design defect/failure to warn), negligence (design defect/failure to warn), unfair competition (UCL), wrongful death, and a survival action.

The Main Question of the Case: Raine v. OpenAI

A central issue in this case is whether ChatGPT with GPT-4o constitutes a “product” for purposes of the theories asserted and, if so, whether it was defectively designed or sold without adequate warnings in a way that created an unreasonable risk of harm to foreseeable users, including minors. The court will also need to consider whether defendants breached a duty of reasonable care in designing and deploying safety systems intended to prevent harmful interactions, and whether the alleged failures were a substantial factor in the death and related damages claimed. Another key question is whether defendants’ marketing and operational practices were unlawful, unfair, or misleading under California’s Unfair Competition Law based on the alleged safety and warning deficiencies. Finally, the case requires evaluating the scope of wrongful death and survival damages (and any requested injunctive relief) if liability is established.

FAQ: Raine v. OpenAI

Q: What does “design defect” mean in a product liability case involving software or an AI service?

A: It means the plaintiffs claim the product’s core design (how it works as built) created an unreasonable safety risk that could have been reduced with a safer alternative design.

Q: What is a “failure to warn” claim, and what kinds of warnings do plaintiffs say were missing here?

A: It’s a claim that users weren’t adequately warned about known or foreseeable risks, and the plaintiffs allege that warnings to minors/parents about dependency and harmful outputs were insufficient.

Q: How do courts evaluate causation in a wrongful death case tied to an alleged product defect or negligence?

A: Courts typically ask whether the alleged defect or negligence was a “substantial factor” in the harm, based on evidence linking the conduct to the outcome.

Q: What is the difference between a wrongful death claim and a survival action in California?

A: Wrongful death seeks certain damages for the family’s losses, while a survival action seeks damages the decedent’s estate could have recovered for harms suffered before death.

Q: What is California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and what remedies can it provide in cases like this?

A: The UCL targets unlawful, unfair, or misleading business practices and generally allows remedies like injunctive relief and restitution (not traditional damages).

Q: What kinds of safeguards or injunctive relief are plaintiffs asking the court to require, and why?

A: They seek court-ordered safety measures, especially for minors and high-risk situations—aimed at reducing harmful interactions and improving warnings and intervention protocols.

If you lost a loved one and believe a company’s product design, safety failures, or negligent conduct contributed to that death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to pursue accountability and justice.

2025’s Biggest California Wrongful Death Cases: Four Landmark Outcomes

California juries are making it clear: when a death could have been prevented, the financial consequences can be huge. In 2025, some of the state’s largest wrongful death verdicts showed a clear change in how jurors view loss, corporate responsibility, and deterrence. Some believe this shift is tied to a post-COVID perspective, where the human cost of wrongful death feels more real and personal, leading to higher verdicts.

Wrongful Death Cases in California in 2025: Significant Examples

These three cases show that landmark wrongful death outcomes in California can look very different. They include a record jury verdict against a large company, a major settlement with a public agency over alleged system failures, and a published appellate decision that could change how damages are handled in future cases. Each case highlights a different way to achieve accountability and shows why wrongful death litigation was a major focus in 2025.

Case #1: Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 21STCV05513

A Summary of the Case: The plaintiffsSummary of the Case: The plaintiffs are the family or estate of Mae K. Moore, who are either wrongful death survivors or estate representatives, depending on the legal filings. The defendants are Johnson & Johnson and other related companies. The lawsuit claimed that Mae K. Moore’s illness and death were caused by asbestos exposure from the defendants’ products, and that the companies failed to provide warnings or acted improperly.

The case is a landmark 2025 California wrongful death case because of the sheer size of the award. Such a large amount signifies the continued escalation of “nuclear verdict” risk in California wrongful death/product exposure matters and the willingness of juries to impose extraordinary damages in cases involving alleged corporate safety failures.

Case #2: County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (related to the Noah Cuatro wrongful death civil case)

Court: California Court of Appeals

Case No.: B339093 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 4)

Attached to Trial Case No. 20STCV24771 filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court

Summary of the Case: Evangelina “Eva” Hernandez, both personally and as the legal representative for the child’s estate and siblings, filed a wrongful death lawsuit. She claimed that child welfare authorities failed to protect the child and did not act on clear warning signs of danger, including not following through on protective steps mentioned in the court record. In September 2025, LA County supervisors agreed to a $20 million settlement with the child’s family.

The Noah Cuatro wrongful death case was one of the most notable public-entity settlements in California in 2025. It brought attention to system accountability and involved a large settlement and significant public attention.

Case #3: Ng v. Superior Court

Case No.: G064257 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3)

Underlying Trial Court Case Info: Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2023-01360050

Summary of the Case: Joely Ng sued Los Alamitos Medical Center and doctors for medical malpractice and wrongful death after her husband, Kenneth Ng, allegedly received negligent care following a G-tube problem and improper placement. Ng developed sepsis and died three months later. The case led to a published appellate decision about whether wrongful death and survival or medical negligence claims can each have separate MICRA noneconomic damage caps, which is a key issue in California medical malpractice and wrongful death cases.

Ng v. Superior Court is a landmark 2025 wrongful death case because it changes how damages can be claimed and valued in medical malpractice wrongful death cases. It clarifies how wrongful death and survival claims are treated under MICRA’s cap rules.

Wrongful death cases are about more than just money, but the 2025 outcomes show something important: California juries and courts are more willing to impose serious consequences when families claim a preventable loss was caused by corporate wrongdoing, system failures, or poor care. Whether the result is a large verdict, a major public settlement, or a new legal precedent, the main theme is accountability and the need for careful, evidence-based legal work from the start.

If your family has lost a loved one and you think negligence or wrongdoing was involved, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you learn about your legal options and what to do next. Contact our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to talk about how you may be able to seek accountability under California law.