Sindell v. Abbott Lab.
26 Cal. 3d 588, 607 P.2d 924, 163 Cal. Rptr. 132 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a product liability case involving a fungible good, a plaintiff who is unable to identify the specific manufacturer of the product that caused her injury may hold the manufacturers of a substantial share of the product liable, with damages apportioned based on each manufacturer's respective market share.
Facts:
- Between 1941 and 1971, several drug companies, including the defendants, manufactured, promoted, and marketed diethylstilbesterol (DES), a fungible drug produced from a common and mutually agreed upon formula.
- DES was administered to pregnant women for the purpose of preventing miscarriage.
- Judith Sindell's mother ingested DES during pregnancy for this purpose.
- Sindell was exposed to DES while in utero.
- DES was later found to cause cancerous and precancerous growths in the daughters of mothers who took the drug, with the effects manifesting after a significant latent period.
- As a result of her exposure to DES, Sindell developed a malignant tumor and other precancerous conditions.
- Due to the long passage of time and the fungible nature of the drug, Sindell was unable to identify the specific manufacturer of the DES her mother ingested.
Procedural Posture:
- Judith Sindell filed a class action complaint against eleven drug companies in California state trial court.
- The defendant drug companies filed demurrers (motions to dismiss) arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
- Sindell stated in her filings that she could not identify the specific manufacturer of the DES her mother had ingested.
- The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend on the ground that Sindell could not identify which defendant manufactured the drug that caused her injuries.
- The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal for the defendants.
- Sindell, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a plaintiff, who cannot identify the specific manufacturer of a fungible drug (DES) that caused her injury, hold a group of manufacturers liable for her injuries based on their substantial share of the market for that drug?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
Yes. A plaintiff who cannot identify the specific manufacturer of a fungible drug that caused her injury may hold a group of manufacturers liable based on their substantial share of the market for that drug. The court rejected traditional tort doctrines like alternative liability (under Summers v. Tice), concert of action, and enterprise liability as inadequate for this situation. The Summers rule is inapplicable because it requires all potential tortfeasors to be joined, which is impossible with approximately 200 DES manufacturers. Instead, the court created a new doctrine of market-share liability, reasoning that as between an innocent plaintiff and negligent defendants, the latter should bear the cost of the injury. The defendants' production of a drug with long-delayed effects played a significant role in creating the plaintiff's inability to identify the specific tortfeasor. Under this new rule, if the plaintiff joins manufacturers representing a substantial share of the DES market, the burden of proof shifts to each defendant to prove it could not have made the product that caused the injury. If a defendant cannot do so, it will be held liable for the proportion of the judgment represented by its share of that market.
Dissenting - Richardson, J.
No. The majority's market-share liability theory abandons the foundational tort principle that a plaintiff must prove a causal link between the defendant's action and the plaintiff's injury. This new rule allows recovery from a group of defendants even though it remains entirely speculative whether any of them actually caused the plaintiff's harm. It unfairly holds a defendant liable when it is mathematically more likely than not that it played no role in the injury. This 'deep pocket' approach is unwise public policy that will inevitably inhibit pharmaceutical research and the development of new drugs for fear of unknown, future liability. The decision to implement such a radical change with widespread economic and social ramifications should be made by the Legislature, not the judiciary.
Analysis:
This landmark decision created the novel legal doctrine of market-share liability, representing a significant departure from traditional tort principles of causation. It provides a pathway for recovery for plaintiffs injured by fungible, mass-produced products with latent defects, where identifying the specific manufacturer is impossible. The decision established a new precedent for allocating liability among multiple negligent actors in industries producing identical goods. Its influence has been substantial but controversial, with various jurisdictions adopting modified versions of the doctrine or rejecting it in favor of traditional causation rules.
Unlock the full brief for Sindell v. Abbott Lab.