Georgia Legal Guide: Amazon Delivery Vehicle Accidents and Your Rights 

Key Points:

• Amazon Often Claims No Responsibility: Amazon positions its Delivery Service Providers (DSPs) as independent contractors to try to avoid liability for delivery vehicle accidents. 
• Control Equals Liability: Under Georgia law, you may be able to hold Amazon responsible by proving they control the “time, method and manner” of DSP operations through respondeat superior or joint venture claims. 
• Extensive Amazon Control: In Court, it has been proven that Amazon does, in some circumstances, exercise control through specific mechanisms including financial oversight, employee training requirements, electronic tracking, and mandatory retraining programs. 
• Discovery Is Key: Proper legal discovery and depositions can obtain documentation proving Amazon’s control over DSP operations. 

Who Is to Blame When an Amazon Delivery Van Hits My Car? 

“Can I sue Amazon after I was hit by a delivery van?” The answer is maybe, and getting to that answer is complex.  

Proving liability in an Amazon van case can be challenging, but it may be crucial to pursuing full and fair compensation. Not only do you need to identify the driver involved, but you also need to identify the party or parties controlling that driver at the time of the crash. Whether that is a Delivery Service Provider (DSP), Amazon, or both, it can mean thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars difference in your compensation.  

Table of Contents

Who to Sue? Amazon, the DSP, or Both? 

Amazon operates through a network of small companies called Delivery Service Providers (DSPs) and drivers called Delivery Associates who deliver packages in commercial vans. Oftentimes, when accidents occur, Amazon may immediately claim these DSPs are "independent contractors," arguing that Amazon has no responsibility for the crash. 

In Georgia, the classification of workers as independent contractors plays a key role in limiting liability for companies like Amazon, especially in regards to accidents involving delivery drivers. Not only does Amazon contract with third-party DSPs, these DSPs often classify their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Further increasing the gap between the driver who caused the accident and Amazon.  

Under Georgia law, if Amazon does not control the time, manner, or method of a driver's work, it can argue that it is not legally responsible for the accidents those drivers cause. This helps Amazon avoid direct liability for on-the-ground incidents, distancing itself from the actions of contractors.  Georgia law that explains when an employer is liable for the negligence of a contractor is found at Georgia Code Section O.C.G.A. 51-2-5. 

However, if Amazon has significant control over routes, schedules, or driver performance, courts may question this classification, potentially exposing the company to legal risk despite the DSP/independent contractor business model. 

Examples of Amazon's Control Over DSPs 

Amazon can exercise extensive control over DSPs through various different mechanisms. These include: 

• Providing approved vendors for vehicles and services at reduced costs 
• Requiring access to DSP financial records and auditing them 
• Mandating specific employee handbooks and offer letters 
• Setting minimum wages and requiring specific benefits 
• Requiring background checks and training at Amazon facilities 
• Electronic monitoring of driver behavior and mandatory retraining 

Proof of this kind of control may mean showing that the company is also liable for your injuries.  

How are Amazon Delivery Vehicle Cases Treated Under Georgia Law? 

If you can show that Amazon maintained certain control over their DSP, you may be able to prove liability under the doctrines of either "respondeat superior" (that Amazon controls how the work is done) or "joint venture" (that Amazon and the DSP work so closely together they're essentially partners. 

Respondeat Superior: The Master-Servant Doctrine 

The doctrine of respondeat superior which is found in the Georgia code at O.C.G.A. 51-2-2, holds that an employer may be vicariously liable for its employees' negligent acts within the scope of their employment. In this case, the injured party must prove Amazon exercised control over the time, manner, and method by which the delivery driver performed their work.  

For instance, even though drivers are typically employed by third-party DSPs, you could argue that Amazon’s tight control over routing, delivery sequencing, tracking, performance metrics, and even discipline effectively turns the DSPs and their drivers into agents or servants of Amazon.  

Joint Venture: Liability of Business Partners 

When two parties work so closely together in a shared enterprise, the law can treat them as partners for liability purposes. Georgia courts will look for several things to establish an implied joint venture.  

In the case of Amazon and DSPs this may include: 

• Joint control of delivery operations (not just contractually assign tasks), 
• Sharing in profits and losses (not just pay per route), 
• And collaborating closely enough that the DSP is not truly independent. 

Injured parties could argue that Amazon and the DSP function as joint venturers, working in tandem to fulfill Amazon’s delivery operations using Amazon-branded vans, proprietary routing software, uniform performance standards, and real-time tracking tools. In other words, if Amazon provides the tools, the direction, and the expectations, and the DSP merely executes Amazon’s business model, a Georgia court could find that the two entities are so interdependent that they operate as a joint venture. 

Hypothetical Examples: Amazon Accidents in Metro Atlanta, Georgia 

Tracked Delivery 

Harper was driving home from work at Dowling Textile Company when an Amazon delivery van ran a red light and T-boned her car. Harper suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and other severe injuries. Her total actual damages (lost wages, medical bills, and property damage) were $500,000, in addition to pain and suffering damages. 

The DSP driver had minimal insurance, but Harper's attorney discovered that Amazon was electronically tracking the driver's behavior through the "Mentor" computer program on his phone and using the "ORCA" program to determine when he needed retraining.   

Amazon tried to deny liability, but because Amazon was monitoring and controlling how the driver performed his job in real-time, a Georgia court found Amazon liable for Harper’s damages under the theory of respondeat superior. 

Controlled Schedule 

Elijah was struck by an Amazon delivery van while driving on Interstate 285 in Dekalb County, around Atlanta, Georgia. His Toyota Corolla was totaled, and he was unable to work for two weeks due to his injuries. Elijah also needed several months of physical therapy post-accident to fully recover. 

While speaking to the police, the delivery driver stated he was rushing to meet Amazon’s impossible delivery quotas. While conducting discovery, Elijah's lawyers found that Amazon required the DSP to electronically record driver hours, giving Amazon access to this data. Amazon also required drivers to be paid according to its wage policies and tracked package delivery through its "CORTEX" computer program. 

Because Amazon dictated the driver’s schedule, monitored delivery performance in real time, and effectively controlled labor conditions, the court found there was sufficient evidence of a joint venture between Amazon and the DSP. As such, Elijah was able to pursue Amazon for his damages. 

Pinpointing Legal Responsibility After an Amazon Delivery Van Crash 

Identifying liable parties after a crash with a commercial vehicle is not simple, particularly when several parties are involved. In the case of Amazon delivery vans, this could be an independent contractor driver, DSP, and Amazon itself. The relationship between these parties could impact their liability and, in turn, your ability to get full and fair financial compensation. 

Holding Amazon accountable for a delivery crash is not always simple, but it is possible. If you were injured in an Amazon delivery accident, understanding how Georgia law treats issues of control, responsibility, and partnership is the first step in building a strong claim. Whether showing liability rests on the level of control Amazon exercises over the driver or on how closely Amazon and the DSP function together, uncovering evidence of the actual relationship between these parties may have a significant impact on your recovery.