Sindell Approach: each manufacturer of a drug is liable as determined by the proportional share sold in the relevant market area. Does not solve case-in-fact problem. It asks who contributed to a general risk of injruy and distributes damages among those creators.
The "Market share approach" holds defendants liable for part of the plaintiff's damages in proportion to their market share.
Hymowitz decision is that it would be a windfall to producers if many produced substantially identical products that all posed the same risk, but plaintiff could not identify, precisely, which one produced the one that caused plaintiff's injuries.
Many courts have refused to adopt Sindell.
Loss-of-a-chance causation: cases where the chance of survival was adversely affected by tortious conduct. For instance, reduced from 75% chance of survival to 50% chance. Many courts rule that in this case, defendant would be responsible for 25% of wrongful death damages.
Causation: if all contributed to cause an indivisible harm (for instance, many products giving small exposure to asbestos, and asbestiosis results. No one can be proven to have done it, but likely that exposure to all sources did it), defendants are probably liable under a "but for" standard. If the courts use a substantial factor standard, the jury would find them all liable.
Res Judicata (a matter already judged): once a case is settled, it can't be re-opened due to future damages later down the road.
No comments:
Post a Comment