(Reuters) - Amazon.com Inc on Thursday urged the Supreme Court of Texas to overturn a ruling holding it liable after a battery in a remote control sold by a third party through Amazon's marketplace popped out and was swallowed by a toddler, causing esophageal burns.

Brendan Murphy of Perkins Coie said liability for defective products was limited "to those who actually place the product in the stream of commerce," and that Amazon did not qualify.

Jeff Meyerson of the Meyerson Law Firm, who represents the child's mother, Morgan McMillan, countered that Amazon had performed exactly the same function as a brick-and-mortar store.

"Amazon is just this giant behemoth that people should be able to trust, but they really can't, and the public's not aware that Amazon is not taking proactive measures to make sure their products are safe," he said.

The dispute concerns a knockoff Apple TV remote sold by a Chinese third-party seller, Hu Xi Ji, through the company's "Fulfillment by Amazon" service, in which Amazon stores sellers' products at its warehouses until they are sold and ships them to buyers itself.

McMillan sued Amazon in 2018. U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore of the Southern District of Texas granted her summary judgment, finding Amazon was liable because it had placed the product in the stream of commerce.

On appeal, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question of whether Amazon was liable under Texas law to the Texas Supreme Court.

Murphy argued Thursday that placing a product in the stream of commerce meant acquiring title to it and setting its price. Amazon, he said, was merely a "facilitator."

Justice Debra Lehrman asked whether the outcome would mean that customers, who often deal only with Amazon, would have no recourse if they are injured by a defective product.

"They (Amazon) can basically be selling junk and have no responsibility to figure it out," she said.

Murphy answered that was a policy concern better addressed by the legislature than the court.

He also said that, while Amazon did not have the "omniscience" required to review every third-party product in advance, it did have a product safety team to react to safety concerns when they arise.

Meyerson said that was inadequate.

"I deposed the product safety team and this woman, with all due respect, she was just asleep at the wheel," he said.

He said a seller who was kicked off the marketplace could simply create a new company, noting that his client had learned Hu's name only through the lawsuit and that the name of the seller on Amazon was USA Shopping.

"They choose to do business with these fly-by-night companies," he said. "It's like whack-a-mole ... All they have to do is come up with these little fake names."

Though most courts that have addressed Amazon's liability for third-party sellers' products have sided with the company, a California state appellate last year ruled it could be liable. The state's top court declined to review that ruling.

The case is Amazon.com Inc v. McMillan, Supreme Court of Texas, No. 20-0979.

For Amazon: Brendan Murphy of Perkins Coie

For the Chamber of Commerce: Scott Keller of Lehotsky Keller

For McMillan: Jeff Meyerson of The Meyerson Law Firm