Lexplug logoLexplug

Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York
17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 835, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13692, 345 F. Supp. 353 (1972)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a plaintiff cannot identify the specific manufacturer of an injury-causing product, an entire industry of manufacturers and its trade association can be held jointly liable if the plaintiff can prove the defendants acted jointly to control the risks of the product or operated as a collective enterprise.


Facts:

  • Thirteen children were injured in twelve separate accidents across ten states by exploding blasting caps between 1955 and 1959.
  • The manufacturer of the specific cap that injured each child could not be identified because the explosion destroyed any markings.
  • The blasting caps involved did not have any warning labels on them and were designed in a way that they could be easily detonated by a child.
  • The defendants, six major blasting cap manufacturers and their trade association, the Institute of Makers of Explosives (I.M.E.), comprised virtually the entire United States blasting cap industry.
  • Through their trade association, the defendants had actual knowledge that children were frequently injured by their products and collectively maintained statistics on these accidents.
  • The defendants, through the I.M.E., jointly and explicitly considered placing warning labels on individual caps but collectively decided against it.
  • The defendants also engaged in joint lobbying activities to prevent legislation that would have required such labeling.

Procedural Posture:

  • Thirteen children and their parents (Chance et al.) sued six blasting cap manufacturers and their trade association, the Institute of Makers of Explosives (I.M.E.), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
  • The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing they could not be held jointly liable.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Can a group of manufacturers and their trade association, comprising virtually an entire industry, be held jointly liable for injuries caused by a product when the specific manufacturer of the injury-causing product is unknown?


Opinions:

Majority - Weinstein, District Judge

Yes, a group of manufacturers and their trade association can be held jointly liable under such circumstances. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, reasoning that the plaintiffs' allegations could support a finding of joint liability under several theories. The first theory is 'joint control of risk,' where liability is based on the defendants' cooperative or concerted activities in making safety decisions, such as explicitly agreeing not to place warnings on caps. This can be proven by showing an explicit agreement, parallel behavior implying a tacit agreement, or adherence to an industry-wide safety standard. The second theory is 'enterprise liability,' which holds the entire industry responsible for the foreseeable costs of its activities, particularly when the industry, as a collective, is in the best position to know the risks, take precautions, and spread the costs of injury. The court also held that if the plaintiffs prove the defendants breached a duty of care and that the injury was likely caused by a cap made by one of the defendants, the burden of proof may shift to each individual defendant to prove it did not cause the harm, as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433B.



Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision in the development of collective liability theories in tort law. It establishes the concept of 'industry-wide liability,' a precursor to the market-share liability theory later adopted in cases like Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories. The court's willingness to shift the burden of causation from the injured plaintiff to the defendant manufacturers in a concentrated industry addresses situations where a product's nature makes it impossible to identify a specific tortfeasor. This decision significantly impacts product liability litigation by allowing plaintiffs to sue an entire industry for its collective safety failures, holding the group accountable for risks it jointly controlled or created.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc. (1972) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.