The legal doctrine of market share liability protects plaintiffs who do not real

Question

The legal doctrine of market share liability protects plaintiffs who do not realize they were harmed by products until years after they used the product. Often plaintiffs may have used many different brands of the same product, or might not know who manufactured the product. The legal theory of market share liability allows plaintiffs to gain recovery for their injuries despite these difficulties.

CONCEPT REVIEW:

Before beginning this assignment, review the section titled "Market Share Liability" beginning on page 253 of your text, paying special attention to the case of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories. Apply what you have learned to the lead-paint case discussed as follows.

Read the hypothetical below and answer the questions which follow:

A family with a small child moves often. The family has lived in two different apartment complexes in the past six months. While living in the apartments, the child, Hilary, unknowingly ingests white lead paint chips and lead paint dust from the walls and ceiling. As a result, Hilary is diagnosed with lead poisoning. Consequently, she suffered cognitive injuries related to high levels of lead in her blood.

The apartments were both built around 1920. In the state where Hilary and her family lived, lead paint became illegal for interior surfaces in 1976. So there is a 56-year period when the lead paint could have legally been put on the walls of the apartments. The apartments could have been repainted numerous times, and there is no way to determine which specific lead paint companies the paint came from. In fact, it is possible that multiple companies' paint affected Hilary.

Hilary's family was successful in suing the landlord and insurer of the apartments. In addition, the child's family brought litigation against the manufacturers of lead paint. Even though the paint was not illegal, the plaintiffs present evidence that the lead paint industry knew about the potential dangers and did not stop using the product.

Correctly answer each of the following questions, fully explaining your answers.

If the judge rules in favor of Hilary's family (in a market share liability case), who potentially would need to pay for the damages? Why?

2. In this case, the manufacturers of the lead paint knew about the toxic dangers of their product. However, they kept using the product until it was made illegal in 1976 and attempted to keep the dangers a secret from their customers. What effect, if any, does this have your analysis?

3. How should the market share theory be applied to this case by the court?

Explanation / Answer

Answer 1:

If the judge rules in favor of Hilary's family (in a market share liability case), then the lead paint manufacturer need to pay for the damages because toxic products were manufactured by the lead paint manufacturer, even the lead paint manufacturer were aware that the products are toxic and it may harm the life of people as lead is harmful for people. In this case the liability is clear that the lead paint manufacturer has the liability for the toxic paint manufacturing and supply in the market. Though the product was not banned till 1976, but still, if someone is infected by any product then he can sue to the manufacturer for the damages occurred to them due to use of their product.

Answer 2.

In this case, the manufacturers of the lead paint knew about the toxic dangers of their product. However, they kept using the product until it was made illegal in 1976 and attempted to keep the dangers a secret from their customers.

The effect it had on our analysis is that people are not cautious and serious about the health of consumers. The manufacturers are not investigating the harmful impacts of their products properly and they do not care seriously the harmful impacts on the health of the consumers, however they would like to explore commercially to the extent possible and in their purview. Manufacturer are greedy and wants to explore commercially as much as possible, health does not have significant impacts in the analysis of the manufacturer.

Answer3:

The market share theory be applied to this case by the court is that if the product has any harmful impact to any of the consumer or third party, then the manufacturer will have the liability for the damages the consumers had suffered. The manufacture will need to born the expenses in managing the damages as per the liabilities assigned by the court. As per this theory, the toxic product manufacturing and its health impacts’ liability will be on the manufacturer and the manufacturer need to ensure that their products are non-toxic or non-harmful and does not have impact on consumers upon use.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.