Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association case brief
summary
690 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1997)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, injured minor, her legal guardians, and mother, filed an action against appellees, lead pigment manufacturers and trade association, for lead poisoning from the lead in appellant injured's home. Appellants could not identify the manufacturer or when the pigment was made, sold, or applied to the home. Appellants invoked market share liability, alternate liability, conspiracy, and concert of action. The trial court granted, and the superior court affirmed, appellees' motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that appellants, injured minor, her legal guardians, and mother, failed to establish a cause of action for lead poisoning against appellees, lead pigment manufacturers and trade association. The court held that application of market share liability would distort liability.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
690 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1997)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, injured minor,
her legal guardians, and mother, challenged a decision of the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which granted the motion of
appellees, lead pigment manufacturers and trade association, for
summary judgment, in a lead poisoning case. Appellants contended that
market share liability, as an alternate liability theory, should be
applied, and claimed civil conspiracy and concert of action.CASE FACTS
Appellants, injured minor, her legal guardians, and mother, filed an action against appellees, lead pigment manufacturers and trade association, for lead poisoning from the lead in appellant injured's home. Appellants could not identify the manufacturer or when the pigment was made, sold, or applied to the home. Appellants invoked market share liability, alternate liability, conspiracy, and concert of action. The trial court granted, and the superior court affirmed, appellees' motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court affirmed the superior court's judgment, finding that adoption of market share liability would be inappropriate as it would grotesquely distort liability of a manufacturer.
- The court held that alternate theory was also inapplicable because appellees did not act simultaneously in producing the lead paint and that appellants failed to join in all potential tortfeasors over the 100-year period.
- The court stated that appellants also failed to support their cause of action for civil conspiracy or concert of action because they were unable to identify the manufacturer of lead pigment found at appellant injured's home that was ingested and caused her injuries.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that appellants, injured minor, her legal guardians, and mother, failed to establish a cause of action for lead poisoning against appellees, lead pigment manufacturers and trade association. The court held that application of market share liability would distort liability.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment