Sindell v. Abbott Labs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sindell v. Abbott Labs was a landmark 1980 tort law negligence case which established the doctrine of market share liability.
Contents |
[edit] Case background
The plaintiff in Sindell was a young woman who had developed cancer from her mother's use of the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy. There had been a large number of companies manufacturing DES at various times between the mother's use of the drug and the daughter's lawsuit. As such, it was impossible for the plaintiff to find every manufacturer of DES to join in one suit.
[edit] Decision
The California Supreme Court decided to apply a new kind of liability, known as market share liability, to the case. The essential components of the theory were as follows:
1. All named defendants in the suit are potential tortfeasors
2. The product involved is fungible
3. The plaintiff cannot identify which defendant produced the fungible product through no fault of her own
4. All of the manufacturers who produced the product during the relevant time are named as defendants in the suit
If these requirements are met, a court may order each manufacturer to pay damages equal to its share of the market for the product at the time the product was used.
[edit] Problems in applying the doctrine
Courts after Sindell have refused to apply the market share doctrine to products other than drugs such as DES. The argument centers on the fact that a product must be fungible to hold all producers equally liable for any harm. If the product were not fungible, then different production methods or even negligence in manufacturing could lead to some manufacturers being more culpable than others, yet only required to pay up to their share of the market. The time period over which the harm occurred is also an issue: in Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association, a 1997 Pennsylvania case, the plaintiffs complained of the use of lead-based paint in their house. The court refused to apply the market share theory because the house had stood for over a century and many manufacturers of lead-based paint had since gone out of business, while others named in the suit had not existed at the time the house was painted. The court also noted that lead-based paint was not a fungible product and therefore, some of the manufacturers may not have been responsible for Skipworth's injuries.
[edit] References
- Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association, 690 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1997)
- Epstein, Richard A. Cases and Materials on Torts, 8th edition. Aspen Publishers, 2004.
