The recent decision in Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories et al. established a new doctrine of causation in product liability, “market share liability.” Under this doctrine the manufacturers of the drug DES, if found guilty of the charges of negligence filed against them, would be assessed damages in proportion to their market share even though the plaintiff, Judith Sindell, cannot identify which of those manufacturers produced the drug causing her injury.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Bar Association (1980), “DES Ruling Shakes Products Liability Field,”ABA Journal, 66 (July), 827.
2.
Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962), 370 U.S. 294.
3.
DayGeorge S., ShockerAllan D., and SrivastavaRajendra K. (1979), “Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product-Markets,”Journal of Marketing, 43 (Fall), 8–19.
4.
DworkinTerry Morehead (1981), “Product Liability Reform and the Model Uniform Product Liability Act,”Nebraska Law Review, 60 (Winter), 50–80.
5.
FTC v. Procter and Gamble Co. (1966), 386 U.S. 568.
6.
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963), 337 P. 2d 897.
7.
Hall v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (1972), 345 F. Supp. 853.
8.
Harvard Law Review (1981), “Market Share Liability: An Answer to the DES Causation Problem,”94 (January), 668–680.
9.
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (1960), 32 N. J. 358, 161 A. 2d 69.
10.
Insurance Services Office (1976), “Products Liability Closed Claim Survey,” unpublished working paper, New York: ISO.
11.
KotlerPhilip (1971), Marketing Decision Making: A Model Building Approach, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
12.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company (1916), 217 N.Y. 382.
13.
Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), American Law Institute.
14.
ShinerNaomi (1978), “DES and a Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability,”Fordham Law Review, 46, 963–1007.
15.
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories et al. (1980), 26 Cal. 3d 588.
16.
Summers v. Tice (1948), 33 Cal. 2d 80.
17.
TrombettaWilliam L., and WilsonTimothy L. (1975), “Foreseeability of Misuse and Abnormal Use of Products by the Consumer,”Journal of Marketing, 39 (July), 48–55.
18.
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945), 148 F. 2d 416.
19.
WaldripGlenn J.Jr. (1980), “Limiting Liability: Products Liability and a Statute of Repose,”Baylor Law Review, 32 (Winter), 137–151.
