F: While the Ps mother was pregnant, she was given a medicine, and alleges that it developed cancer. P named five

manufacturers of medicine as co-defendants, however there are other small manufacturers. TC ruled in favor of Ds

I: When it is impossible for P to name all the possible wrongdoers that casued P’s injury, but can figure out the percentage of

market share of the named Ds, whether each of D will be liable for the proportion of the judgment represented by its share of that market unless each can prove that they are liable

R: When it is impossible for P to name all the possible wrongdoers that casued P’s injury, but can figure out the percentage of market share of the named Ds, each of D will be liable for the proportion of the judgment represented by its share of that market unless each can prove that they are liable

A: If all the Ds jointly controlled the risk of harm, and the pl could establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the product was manufactured by one defendant, the burden of proof as to causation would shift to all dfs, so long as it only applies to a

small unit of producers.

Where in this case there are some 200 manufacturers this doctrine does not apply.

In determining causation, measure the likelihood that nay of the dfs supplied the product, by the percentage of DES sold by each

of them for the purpose of preventing miscarriages.

PL asserts that 5 or 6 companies produces 90 % of the DES marketed. Each manufacturer’s liability for an injury would be approximately equivalent to the damages caused by the DES it manufactured.

C: reversed

## No comments:

## Post a Comment