[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> All I am saying that there may be many mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Apparently not, at least according to the article I linked you. The legal theory under which a retailer would be liable is strict liability. That means that even if they did their absolute best to only sell safe goods, they are still liable for damages. I'm not commenting on whether that's good or bad, but it is how it is.

> I am also quite convinced that the "let's sue Amazon" bandwagon has a lot more to do with Amazon being a gigantic retailer with potentially large payoffs rather than the merits of the case.

The ability of the respondent to pay is a valid consideration when considering the target of a lawsuit. I'm sure some of the glee at the prospect on this site does come from the anti-corporate sentiment that's common on here, but that doesn't change the calculus of choosing a lawsuit target.