Amazon’s $16M Trial Defeat: The Jury Didn’t Believe These 5 Things

In re Bradfield v. Amazon Logistics, Inc.,¹ & ² a Georgia jury issued a first-of-its-kind verdict against Amazon, sending a cautionary message to Amazon and entities like it to not rely on the legal protections afforded to independent contractor relationships while largely ignoring the structural, operational, and procedural requirements of said protections. After an efficient trial and speedy deliberations, the Bradfield jury returned a verdict that reflected its unbelief in majority of Amazon’s contentions—from its denial of control, to its driver’s side of the story, to its affirmative defenses. This articles summarizes those unbeliefs, and lessons associated with them, in the author’s opinion.³

Table of Contents

• Case Overview
• What didn’t the Jury believe?
• #1: They didn’t believe Minor GB was not visible to Amazon’s driver.
• #2: They didn’t believe Amazon did not have control.
• #3: They didn’t believe Amazon’s training was adequate.
• #4: They didn’t believe Amazon’s claim that Minor GB’s dad was negligent.
• #5: They didn’t believe the next-door-neighbor’s lapse in supervision outweighed Amazon’s driver’s blunder.

Case Overview

On October 10, 2022, an 8-year-old boy, who this article will simply refer to as Minor GB, was under the supervision of his next door neighbor, Caroline McClure, riding an electric bike that McClure purchased for her 5-year-old son (manufacturer recommended for 13+), when he was tragically ran over by 21-year-old delivery driver Jawonn Cowan, pinned under the driver’s van, and dragged 21 feet—resulting in serious “degloving” injuries to his right leg, a hip fracture, skin grafting surgery, a wound vac placement, a lengthy hospital stay, several months of recovery, and lifelong permanent scarring.

The primary questions during trial revolved around whether Minor GB was visible to Cowan, whether Amazon had control over Cowan, whether Cowan was negligently trained by Amazon, whether Minor GB was negligently supervised by his dad, Philip Bradfield, for letting him ride the neighbor’s bike and whether Minor GB was negligently supervised by non-party McClure for leaving him outside unsupervised with access to the bike. The jury ultimately sided with the Plaintiff, and awarded a total of $16,206,680.92 in damages to Minor GB.

Let’s dig in.

What Exactly didn’t the Jury believe?

#1:

The jury didn’t believe Amazon’s theory that Minor GB was not Visible to Cowan.

The jury’s first order of business was to determine whether Cowan’s actions were negligent, which primarily turned on whether Cowan could see Minor GB prior to impact.

Setting the Scene

Around 5:40pm on a Monday evening, Cowan entered a nestled family-friendly community in Tyrone, Georgia where he had delivered packages to many times before. This community has two cul de sacs in the back where the kids enjoy playing outside.

Cowan had just delivered a package here at 311 Ivy Vale Ct and was heading straight toward the cul de sacs for his next delivery.

Shortly after leaving 311, Cowan encounters several children. He comes to a full stop, allows the children to cross, looks left and right, and cautiously proceeds forward. Immediately after proceeding forward, Cowan unknowingly runs over Minor GB. He feels something pulling on his van and pulls over around 21 feet later. He gets out of the van and sees wide-eyed children looking at him. He looks under the van and sees Minor GB pinned underneath it on top of the bike. This is the basic story of the accident.

Cowan’s Contradictions

However, Cowan’s initial statement to police, first written statement to Amazon, second written statement to Amazon, and deposition testimony vary greatly when it comes to how many kids there were, which side of the street they were on, whether some were in the street, whether they crossed from left to right or right to left, and whether he’d seen Minor GB out of the corner of his eye before impact.

In trial, Cowan was called as Plaintiff’s first witness and he testified that the kids crossed from right to left and he “did not remember” seeing Minor GB on a bike. When asked where Minor GB was before he moved the van he said “I don’t know.” When pressed further he said, “I couldn’t tell you…I never seen him…My pathway was clear…there was no children in front of me. I had a clear path…”

Left or Right, Doesn’t Matter — VISIBLE

A point of contention, fought by accident reconstructionists on each side, was whether Minor GB came from Cowan’s left or right side. Amazon benefited in certain ways if the jury believed it was from the right, and the Plaintiff benefited in certain ways if the jury believed it was left. However, a reenactment video created by the Plaintiff’s expert was devastating for Amazon in that it clearly depicted Minor GB was visible to the driver, regardless of which side Minor GB came from.

Reenactment Video

The reenactment was made at the location of the accident with a similar make and model van and bike, a 7 year-old boy who was within an inch of Minor GB’s height, and a camera positioned at Cowan’s height in the driver’s seat of the van. The video shows the boy on the bike crossing in front of the van from both sides, at different speeds, indicating approximately what Cowan would have been able to see on the date of accident from both side mirrors and the frontal windshield view. All perspectives indicated that the driver technically could have see Minor GB through the front windshield.

When Amazon’s reconstruction expert was asked by Plaintiff precisely at what point would he say impact occurred from the right, he said about here:

Importantly, even though the right mirror view would have made Minor GB more difficult to spot than if he was coming from the left driver’s side, Amazon’s own expert acknowledged that Minor GB would have been visible from the right view for about 2 seconds before impact. Amazon defended this by pointing out that it takes longer than 2 seconds to perceive something and then react to it. Plaintiff countered that since Cowan was already at a full stop and already observing children move out of the way, his reaction would have been faster than 2 seconds. Amazon then claimed Minor GB “darted” out of nowhere in front of the van, denying Cowan the opportunity to see him. However, there was never any evidence to support this, and both experts agreed that Minor GB and Cowan were going at relatively slow speeds at the point of impact.

Ultimately, no matter how Amazon tried to slice it, the evidence and expert testimony on both sides made it absolutely clear that the driver would have seen the boy if he had truly looked, resulting in the jury finding Cowan to be 10% at fault.

#2:

The Jury didn’t believe Amazon did not have control.

The parties stipulated that Cowan was employed by Thompson & Carter Entities, LLC d/b/a Fly Fellas Logistics (Fly Fellas), a “Delivery Service Partner” (DSP) and independent contractor of Amazon. The jury was told in Plaintiff’s opening that the sole reason they were in trial was because of Amazon’s refusal to also accept responsibility for Cowan. That, despite the fact that he was wearing an Amazon shirt and vest, driving an Amazon rental van, and delivering an Amazon package at the time of the accident, Amazon claimed “no responsibility” for him.

Employer is Liable for Negligence if They Control

Plaintiff argued if Amazon asserted control over Cowan then Amazon is legally his employer and is, thus, responsible for his negligence. This concept was supported by the judge’s instructions to the jury, that:

“One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.”

So, it was up to Plaintiff to demonstrate Amazon’s control.

Plaintiff Says Amazon Controlled Fly Fella—

Through Plaintiff’s examination of Fly Fellas’ co-owner and corporate representative, Carl Thompson, the jury learned learned that:

• Amazon invited Thompson to become a DSP for Amazon;
• Thompson had never owned or managed a delivery service company prior to being contacted by Amazon;
• Thompson would not have known how to run his DSP without training and support from Amazon;
• Amazon helped Thompson get Fly Fellas registered as an LLC, set up its operations, and get vans;
• Amazon helped Fly Fellas get vans for its drivers, in accordance with Amazon’s specifications;
• Fly Fella’s principal place of business was a desk in Amazon’s facility;
• Fly Fellas single purpose was to deliver Amazon packages for Amazon customers;
• 100% of Fly Fellas deliveries are for Amazon;
• 100% of Fly Fellas’ revenue is earned from Amazon;
• Fly Fellas hired drivers in accordance with Amazon’s eligibility requirements;
• Fly Fellas and their drivers were required to be trained by Amazon;
• Fly Fellas was required to pay its employees Amazon’s preferred minimum wage;
• Fly Fellas was required to have an employee manual that included Amazon’s policies and procedures;
• Fly Fellas and its drivers had to agree to do business on Amazon’s terms and strictly adhere to Amazon’s policies and procedures.
• Fly Fellas’ drivers’ uniforms were determined by Amazon;
• Fly Fellas was required to monitor its drivers for compliance with Amazon’s policies and procedures;
• Amazon had the right to discipline Fly Fellas and its drivers through Fly Fellas;
• Fly Fellas’ drivers’ onboarding, training, payments, and scheduling were done through Amazon’s online and mobile app;
• Fly Fellas and its drivers were required to record certain activities in Amazon’s digital programs;
• Fly Fellas’ drivers’ were required to deliver packages in accordance with Amazon’s delivery instructions;
• Fly Fellas drivers were required to deliver Amazon’s packages on time in accordance with Amazon’s specifications;
• Fly Fellas was required to keep accurate records and make them available to Amazon within 24 hours of request;
• Fly Fellas was required to allow Amazon to collect geolocation and related tracking data of its employees;
• Amazon owns Fly Fellas data, and they can use, share, and do whatever they want with it per their discretion;
• Amazon reserved the right to terminate Fly Fellas DSP if Fly Fellas didn’t follow its procedures; and
• Importantly, that Fly Fellas’ contract with Amazon requires it be subjected to any rules Amazon adopts in the future.

–and Cowan

As it relates to Cowan specifically, the jury heard that:

• Fly Fellas hired Cowan to be a Delivery Associate for Amazon;
• Amazon required Cowan to be trained by Amazon;
• Cowan was trained by Amazon;
• Cowan was instructed and expected to follow Amazon’s training;
• Cowan had to pass an Amazon road test;
• Cowan’s job was to follow the policies and procedures of Amazon;
• Cowan reported daily to an Amazon facility and used an Amazon badge to get in the door;
• Cowan was trained by Amazon on how to load the vans, how to drive the vans, and how to deliver Amazon’s packages; and
• If Cowan did not follow Amazon’s exact training he would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination;

Thompson confirmed nearly all of these, noting continuously that, yes, though they were all true, it was only “per agreement” with Amazon. He was emphatic that despite all of these requirements, and more, he is “an independent business owner” that has “a relationship with Amazon” and Cowan was his employee and not employed or controlled by Amazon.

Amazon Says No, Fly Fellas Controls Cowan!

Counsel for Amazon made it clear in opening statement that his strategy was to focus primarily on Amazon’s affirmative defenses, which were what the case was “really about”. When they did spend time on the topic of control, it was usually brief and limited to the following items:

• Fly Fellas is an independent contractor and its drivers are employees of Fly Fellas, not Amazon;
• Fly Fellas interviewed and hired Cowan, not Amazon;
• Fly Fellas paid Cowan his hourly wage, his benefits, and withheld his taxes, not Amazon;
• Cowan asked Fly Fellas for PTO, not Amazon;
• Fly Fellas decided which shifts Cowan would work, not Amazon;
• Fly Fellas and its drivers, like Cowan, had the right to change their routes; and
• Cowan’s day-to-day contact was with Fly Fellas, not Amazon.

Employer Control of Independent Contractor

To help determine who to believe, the judge instructed the jury that Georgia law recognizes a person can have more than one employer and an employer is generally liable for the negligence of their independent contractors if they exercise:

“enough supervision and control such that the contractor is not free to do the work in his own way.”

In addition to what looked like clear operational and procedural controls over Fly Fellas and Cowan, what put the nail in the coffin on this issue was Amazon’s contract with Fly Fellas, which explicitly stated that Fly Fellas and its drivers were subject to any subsequent changes to the contract. The jury was instructed that if an employer’s contract of employment with an independent contractor states:

“…that the employer status shall be that of independent contractor, but also provides that the employee shall be subject to any rules or policies of the employer which may be adopted in the future, then no independent contractor presumption arises.”

Missing from Amazon’s defense of Plaintiff’s control claims was any contestation of the fact that Amazon dictated that Fly Fellas and its drivers follow Amazon’s policies and procedures and, not just those that exist now but, any that would be adopted in the future. If control hadn’t already been established, the contract term left no room for doubt, and was never really addressed by Amazon.

Amazon’s largely avoidant, denial of control and expectation of the jury to brush everything that looked like control under the rug proved condescending in the face of substantial evidence confirming that Amazon was at the root of Fly Fellas’ entire existence and operation. The jury clearly believed Amazon “exercised control” because it was hard to see any true independence of Fly Fellas or Cowan who had little to no say over their own activities, making Amazon’s control over them very difficult to not see under the context of Georgia law.

#3:

The Jury didn’t believe Amazon’s training was Adequate.

Another major issue in the case concerned whether Amazon negligently trained Jawonn Cowan. To establish negligent training, the jury was instructed that Plaintiff had to show:

“…inadequate training by Amazon caused a reasonably foreseeable injury to Gabriel Bradfield.”

That training is inadequate if a reasonable employer exercising the degree of care of ordinarily careful persons in similar circumstances:

“…would have provided training beyond what was given.”

Plaintiff argued Amazon’s training was inadequate because:

• Cowan did not receive ride-along training.
• Cowan’s driving safety training consisted of 7 online modules that were 5-11 minutes each, followed by testing.
  • None of these mention the word child or children.
  • None of these were specific to encountering and dealing with children.
  • None of these were specific to encountering and dealing with children in a subdivision.
• Cowan completed a “Motorcyclist, Bicyclist, and Pedestrian Awareness Training” 17 days after the incident.
• Cowan was never explicitly told to not put packages on the dashboard, and packages were on the dashboard at the time of accident.
• Cowan admitted on cross that if he had been trained to never move the van until he knows where each kid is, he would “like to think” that he would have done so.

Amazon countered that its training was adequate because:

• Cowan was taught how to recognize hazards, including pedestrians and traffic.
• Cowan was taught perception time, reaction time and stopping distance.
• Cowan was taught triangular eye movement, how to identify blind spots (including the one in front of the van), and how to look out for and make eye contact with pedestrians, including children.
• Cowan was instructed to scan his windshield and check his side mirrors frequently and to be aware of unpredictable people and animals that may not be paying attention.
• Cowan was instructed to keep packages in the back of the van and to avoid having any distractions in his sight, including on the dashboard.
• Though Cowan was not explicitly told not to put packages on the dashboard, his training clearly instructed him not to, as evidenced by this training slide:

• The “Motorcyclist, Bicyclist, and Pedestrian Awareness Training” module that Cowan took 17 days after the incident was “rolled out” to him, and all of Amazon’s DSPs, at the end of September, before the accident; the DSPs had 30 days to complete it.

Plaintiff, albeit with some weaknesses, successfully sketched Amazon’s safety training as 1) bare bones, and 2) failing to grasp the seriousness of its drivers’ potential ability to cause harm to others—particularly, young children in the suburbs. The jury allocated a whooping 85% fault to Amazon for negligent training.

#4:

The Jury didn’t believe Amazon’s affirmative defense that Minor GB’s dad, Philip Bradfield, was negligent.

Amazon asserted an affirmative defense against Philip Bradfield (dad) and Caroline McClure (neighbor) for negligent supervision, which holds that:

“A person who undertakes control and supervision, even without compensation, has the duty to use reasonable care to protect the child from injury…he or she is required to use reasonable care commensurate with the reasonably foreseeable risk of harm.”

Crucial to much of Amazon’s arguments was the dirt bike’s manufacturer warnings against young children under the age of 13 riding the bike, against the bike being ridden without adult supervision, and against the bike being ridden in the street, on sidewalks, or near other motor vehicle traffic.

[Warning on Physical Bike]

[Warning in Owner’s Manual]

Amazon argued that Bradfield (and his wife) negligently supervised Minor GB by:

• Allowing him to ride McClure’s dirt bike at times without supervision.
• Allowing him to ride McClure’s dirt bike without reading the manual or warnings on the bike;
• Allowing him to ride McClure’s dirt bike, without restriction, a few months after he lost control on a pedal bike and crashed into a mailbox.
• Failing to insist that McClure secure the dirt bike so the children could not access it whenever they wanted.

Bradfield responded to this by explaining that:

• Supervision was important to him initially, but after observing Minor GB on the dirt bike and feeling confident in Minor GB’s abilities and comfortability, he approved of him riding it without supervision.
• He did not know of the bike manufacturer’s age recommendation of 13+ or that young children be kept away from the bike, but the manufacturer’s instructions and warnings would not have made a difference in him allowing his son to ride it. He “was comfortable that [Minor GB] was comfortable” riding it, and that was the extent of it for him.
• He did not impose any additional restrictions on Minor GB following the pedal bike incident, nor did he ask McClure to.
• McClure leaving the kids outside (with access to the bike) gave him no “pause”.

Counsel for Amazon reiterated these points wherever they could, but their arguments fell flat as the jury allocated 0% fault to Mr. Bradfield, in spite of each and every one of these admissions.

#5:

The jury didn’t believe the next-door-neighbor’s lapse in supervision outweighed the Amazon driver’s serious blunder.

Caroline McClure took the stand with a big smile and friendly presence. She was immediately confronted with the bike’s owner’s manual and manufacturer warnings indicated above.

McClure testified that she was aware that the bike was recommended it for children ages 13+ but she thought it was a rather small bike, decided to look into it, found that many of the bike’s reviewers on Amazon said they bought it for children under the age of 13, and decided it was worth a try. After seeing her son was completely comfortable and confident operating it, so she was not dissuaded by the bike’s warnings or instructions. McClure stated that she had some guidelines for her son’s use of the bike, such as not going past the neighborhood stop sign, but there were times he would ride it without adult supervision. She said the bike was kept in their garage, not locked up, but the kids would typically ask her to ride it before accessing it. Finally, McClure testified that she got consent from the Bradfields for Minor GB to ride it and was always present when he did—until the accident.

On the date of the accident, McClure was outside supervising her son, Minor GB, and a couple of other neighborhood kids around the ages of 4 and 5 when she went inside her home and left them unsupervised for an undetermined amount of time. Though she had told police at the scene that she went inside “to shower,” she testified during trial it was “to use the restroom” and that she’d lied about showering because she was “embarrassed” (no further explanation given). McClure testified that she couldn’t have been gone more than 3.5 to 4 minutes before her son ran into her bathroom and told her Minor GB had been hit. Defense counsel argued in closing that it could not have been this short a window of time given all that happened in the span of time she was gone.

Sole Proximate Cause

Through a series of questions and responses by Amazon, McClure admitted that:

1. If she had locked the bike, then Minor GB would have never had a chance to ride it;
2. If Minor GB never had a chance to ride the bike, then the accident would have never occurred; and
3. If the accident had never occurred, then Minor GB would have never suffered an injury.

Amazon argued strongly that these three points were McClure admitting to being the sole proximate cause of the accident, making it impossible for other parties, including Cowan and Amazon, to be the proximate cause of the accident. The jury was reminded of the following:

“There may be more than one proximate cause of an event, but if an act or omission of any person not a party to the suit was the sole proximate cause of an occurrence, then no act or omission of any party could have been a proximate cause.”

Counsel for Amazon argued that in his 45 years of practice, he had “never seen such a clear and clean admission of proximate cause…and it’s undeniable.” Despite these pleas, the jury ultimately prescribed 5% fault to Mrs. McClure, indicating that though they did see some fault in her actions, that fault was half that of Cowan’s and minuscule when compared to Amazon’s. Amazon’s affirmative defenses, though relevant to some degree, were strongly outweighed by its driver’s own blunder. 

1. In the State Court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia, 22-C-07003-S7, Philip Bradfield, Individually and as Father and Natural Guardian of Minor Gabriel Bradfield, Plaintiff vs. Amazon Logistics, Inc., Thompson & Carter Entities, LLC d/b/a Fly Fella Logistics and Jason Cowan, Defendants. Trial took place from August 12, 2024 to August 15, 2024. ↩︎
2. The full trial is available for viewing on Courtroom View Network (www.cvn.com). All quotations in this article are directly from the trial footage or jury instructions. All graphics are pulled from trial demonstratives used by counsel. Certain relevant documents and images were not shared due to confidentiality concerns. ↩︎
3. The author of this article, Sha’Huni Norman, provides trial commentary in her own opinion and often from the perspective of a lay observer or prospective juror in the case (i.e., not as an attorney). She also provides unsolicited pieces of advice to counsel where inspired. Tips to counsel for Plaintiff appear associated with this symbol 𝛑 and tips to counsel for Defense appear associated with this symbol 𝝙. These are merely her two cents; some say advice is worth what you pay for it. ↩︎