Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/26C3d588.htm 26 Cal. 3d 588] (1980), was a landmark products liability decision of the Supreme Court of California which pioneered the doctrine of market share liability.

Background

The plaintiff in "Sindell" was a young woman who developed cancer as a result of her mother's use of the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy. A large number of companies had manufactured DES around the time the plaintiff's mother used the drug. Since the drug was a fungible product and many years had passed, it was impossible for the plaintiff to identify the manufacturer(s) of the particular DES pills her mother had actually consumed.

Decision

The California Supreme Court decided to impose a new kind of liability, known as market share liability (which was derived from earlier decisions of the Court like "Summers v. Tice"). The essential components of the theory are as follows:

1. All defendants named in the suit are "potential" tortfeasors (that is, they did produce the harmful product at issue)
2. The product involved is "fungible"
3. The plaintiff cannot identify "which defendant" produced the fungible product which harmed "her" in particular, through no fault of her own
4. A "substantial share" of the manufacturers who produced the product during the relevant time period are named as defendants in the action

If these requirements are met, a rebuttable presumption arises in favor of the plaintiff, and a court may order each defendant to pay damages equal to its share of the market for the product at the time the product was used. A manufacturer may rebut the presumption and reduce its market share damages to zero by showing that its product could not have possibly injured the plaintiff (for example, by demonstrating that it did not manufacture the product during the time period relevant for that particular plaintiff).

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 was not fungible, then different production methods or gross negligence in manufacturing might imply that some manufacturers were actually more culpable than others, yet they would only be 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" 690 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1997), 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.

Further reading

* Epstein, Richard A. "Cases and Materials on Torts," 8th edition. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2004.