Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.
1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13692, 345 F. Supp. 353, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 835 (1972)
Rule of Law:
When an industry consisting of a small number of producers jointly controls risk through a trade association and adheres to industry-wide safety standards, the members may be held jointly liable for injuries caused by their products under the theory of enterprise liability, shifting the burden of causation to the defendants if the specific manufacturer cannot be identified.
Facts:
- Between 1955 and 1959, eighteen separate accidents occurred across the United States in which children were injured by dynamite blasting caps.
- The blasting caps involved were manufactured by a limited number of companies who were members of a trade association, the Institute of Makers of Explosives (I.M.E.).
- The manufacturers did not place individual warning labels on the blasting caps, despite the caps being small and easily detonated.
- Children frequently found these caps, which lacked warnings, and were injured when the caps exploded while they were playing with them.
- The manufacturers allegedly possessed statistics through their trade association showing that children were frequently injured by blasting caps.
- Despite knowledge of the danger, the manufacturers allegedly agreed via their association not to label the caps and lobbied against legislation requiring such warnings.
- In the 'Chance' cases, the explosions destroyed the caps, making it impossible for the plaintiffs to identify which specific manufacturer produced the cap that caused their injury.
- In the 'Hall' cases, the plaintiffs were able to identify the specific manufacturer of the cap that caused the injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (injured children and their parents) filed suit against six corporate manufacturers and their trade association in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The complaint asserted claims of negligence, common law conspiracy, assault, and strict liability.
- Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- Defendants also filed motions to sever the claims based on improper joinder and to transfer the severed claims to other districts.
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 comprising virtually an entire industry be held jointly liable for injuries caused by their products when the specific manufacturer of the injury-causing item is unknown, but the plaintiffs allege the industry jointly controlled risk and safety standards through a trade association?
Opinions:
Majority - District Judge Weinstein
Yes, an entire industry may be held jointly liable for harm caused by its operations when the industry is concentrated and jointly controls safety risks. The court reasoned that manufacturers cannot rely on the 'intended use' doctrine to avoid liability if injuries to children (unintended users) were foreseeable. Regarding the 'Chance' plaintiffs, where the specific manufacturer was unknown, the court applied the theory of 'enterprise liability.' Because the blasting cap industry was an oligopoly (small number of producers) that delegated safety functions and standard-setting to a trade association, they exercised joint control over the risk. Citing the principles of 'Summers v. Tice' and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433B, the court held that the burden of proving causation shifts to the defendants. It is fairer to require the proven wrongdoers to exonerate themselves than to leave innocent plaintiffs without a remedy. However, regarding the 'Hall' plaintiffs, since the specific manufacturer was known, the court ruled that enterprise liability was unnecessary and dismissed the claims against the non-producing manufacturers.
Analysis:
This is a landmark decision in the evolution of products liability, specifically regarding 'Enterprise Liability' or 'Industry-Wide Liability.' It significantly expands the burden-shifting doctrine of 'Summers v. Tice' from a simple scenario of two hunters to an entire centralized industry. The court established that when a tight-knit industry acts collectively regarding safety standards (or the lack thereof), they cannot hide behind the anonymity of their generic products to escape liability. This case serves as a critical precedent for mass tort litigation where product identification is difficult, emphasizing that risk distribution and compensation for innocent victims take precedence over strict causation requirements when defendants jointly created the risk.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc. (1972)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"