Market share liability

Last updated

Market share liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case against a group of product manufacturers for an injury caused by a product, even when the plaintiff does not know from which defendant the product originated. The doctrine is unique to the law of the United States and apportions liability among the manufacturers according to their share of the market for the product giving rise to the plaintiff's injury. [1]

Contents

Origins

Market share liability was introduced in the California case Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories . In Sindell, the plaintiffs were injured by DES, a drug prescribed to prevent miscarriage. The mothers of the plaintiffs had taken DES while pregnant, and expert testimony showed this to be a proximate cause of reproductive tract cancers in the plaintiffs years later. The plaintiffs, however, could not ascertain which drug company distributed the DES taken by their mothers. The court responded by allowing the plaintiffs to apportion liability among the defendant drug companies according to their respective shares in the DES market.

Requirements

Sindell laid out the requirements for applying the doctrine of market share liability:

First, the defendants in court must constitute substantially all of the market. This is a distinguishing factor from alternative liability that requires that all of the defendants be in court (See Summers v. Tice ). Having "substantially all" of the market makes it more likely that the actual wrongdoer will be in court. A main reason for not requiring all of the relevant market is that as time passes, some manufacturers drop out of the market, and it would raise the bar for the plaintiff too high. Also if all defendants were present, then market share liability would be unnecessary, because the plaintiff would be able to apply the doctrine of alternative liability to put the burden of proving causation onto the defendants.

Second, the products must be fungible (i.e. interchangeable—they must be of the same composition). For example, in Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association , 690 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1997), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the lead paint the defendants sold to not be fungible because the paints had lead pigments containing different chemical formulations, different amounts of lead, and differed in potential toxicity.

Third, the defendants (potential tortfeasors) must all have been in the market within the specific timeframe surrounding the incident.

Fourth, the inability to point to a specific tortfeasor must not be the plaintiff's fault. This is particularly relevant in the pharmaceuticals context, as most plaintiffs are prescribed generic drugs and thus have no knowledge of who manufactured the product.

Exculpatory evidence

Jurisdictions and courts differ on the possibilities open to defendants to absolve themselves of market share liability. In Sindell (California), the court allowed defendants to bring forth exculpatory evidence and thus free themselves of liability. However, in Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co. (New York), the court refused to allow exculpatory evidence because it felt that doing so would undermine the theory underpinning market share liability—because liability is based on relevant market share, providing exculpatory evidence will not reduce a defendant's overall share of the market.

Subsequent cases

Sindell required plaintiffs to join defendant drug companies in a single action. A Wisconsin court took a different approach on this issue in Collins v. Eli Lilly Co. In Collins, the court found that the plaintiff could bring a cause of action against a single defendant, and the burden of proof would be shifted to the defendant to show that they did not produce the DES taken by the plaintiff's mother. [2]

Efforts to expand the market share approach beyond DES cases have been mostly rejected because the strict requirements of applying market share liability. Courts have declined to expand the market-share approach to asbestos ( Becker v. Baron Bros. ), handguns ( Hamilton v. Beretta ), and lead paint ( Santiago v. Sherwin Williams Co. ). The market-share approach has been expanded to cases involving MTBE in the New York case In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether. [2] [3] [4]

Related Research Articles

Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Although the word "product" has broad connotations, product liability as an area of law is traditionally limited to products in the form of tangible personal property.

In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show, a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of Insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things. The word 'tort' stems from Old French via the Norman Conquest and Latin via the Roman Empire.

In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum. A change of venue might be ordered, for example, to transfer a case to a jurisdiction within which an accident or incident underlying the litigation occurred and where all the witnesses reside.

Assumption of risk is a defense, specifically an affirmative defense, in the law of torts, which bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which the plaintiff was participating at the time of his or her injury.

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

Where two or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability, in most common law legal systems they may either be:

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

Comparative responsibility is a doctrine of tort law that compares the fault of each party in a lawsuit for a single injury. Comparative responsibility may apply to intentional torts as well as negligence and encompasses the doctrine of comparative negligence.

In the USA, the rescue doctrine of the law of torts holds that if a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue that victim. This doctrine was originally promulgated by Benjamin N. Cardozo in the 1921 case, Wagner v. Int'l Ry. Co. There, writing for the Court of Appeals of New York, Cardozo stated: "Danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief [...] The emergency begets the man. The wrongdoer may not have foreseen the coming of a deliverer. He is accountable as if he had." The rescue doctrine was established nineteen years later, in the landmark case of Cote v. Palmer.

Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

Enterprise liability is a legal doctrine under which individual entities can be held jointly liable for some action on the basis of being part of a shared enterprise. Enterprise liability is a form of secondary liability.

Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. The case established the doctrine of alternative liability and has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability in American jurisprudence.

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 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.

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California involving an injury caused by an exploding bottle of Coca-Cola. It was an important case in the development of the common law of product liability in the United States, not so much for the actual majority opinion, but for the concurring opinion of California Supreme Court justice Roger Traynor.

<i>Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd</i>

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd[1998] UKHL 17 is an important English tort law, company law and contract law case. It held that for there to be an effective assumption of responsibility, there must be some direct or indirect conveyance that a director had done so, and that a claimant had relied on the information. Otherwise only a company itself, as a separate legal person, would be liable for negligent information.

Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.

Eggshell skull Legal principle

The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

References

  1. ↑ Henderson, J.A. et al. The Torts Process, Seventh Edition." Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2007, p. 125
  2. 1 2 Henderson, p. 126
  3. ↑ Gilberti, Frank J. Emerging Trends for Products Liability: Market Share Liability, Its History and Future, 15 Touro L. Rev. 719 (1999)
  4. ↑ Henderson, J.A., Twerski, A.D. Products Liability: Problems and Process, 131-136 (5th ed. 2004)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.