Enright v. Eli Lilly and Co. case brief
Facts: Enright’s mom ingested DES during 1960’s for birth of Enright and to avoid miscarriages. Enright had many complications during her daughter’s birth with abnormalities in her reproductive system which caused her daughter to have many disabilities. Mom is tracing her daughter’s disabilities to her reproductive system abnormalities caused as a result of her mom ingesting DES. Courts reinstated the strict liability cause of action for DES.
Decision: No cause of action recognized under strict liability for DES cases.
Reasoning: Courts and legislature removed a lot of legal barriers for people trying to recover as a result of DES because of the nature of it being a drug and it being impossible for a plaintiff to prove their case. It is insidious in its harm and companies marketed and manufactured the drug in peculiar ways. Found that because the kid of the mom who was injured because of her own mom ingesting DES was not a great reason for a cause of action. It would be weird to hold otherwise since the drug can have effects on many generations; courts have to draw the line somewhere. Could not find a way to distinguish this case from Albala which did not want to enforce strict liability against a medical malpractice suit.
Holding: A plaintiff cannot maintain an action against a manufacturer of DES when harm resulted to a person two generations down from the original person because the injury was remote and unforeseeable and an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere.