science

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories is a science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories rather than just read about it. In short: Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588 (1980), was a landmark products liability decision of the Supreme Court of California which pioneered the doctrine of market share liability.

Key takeaways

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588 (1980), was a landmark products liability decision of the Supreme Court of California which pioneered the doctrine of market share liability.

Background The plaintiff in Sindell was a young woman who developed cancer as a result of her mother's use of the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy. A large number of companies had manufactured DES around the time the plaintiff's mother used the drug. Since the drug was a fungible product and many years had passed, it was impossible for the plaintiff to identify the manufacturer(s) of the particular DES pills her mother had actually consumed.

Decision In a 4-3 majority decision by Associate Justice Stanley Mosk, the court decided to impose a new kind of liability, known as market share liability. The doctrine evolved from a line of negligence and strict products liability opinions (most of which had been decided by the Supreme Court of California) that were being adopted as the majority rule in many U.S. states. The essential components of the theory are as follows:

All defendants named in the suit are potential tortfeasors (that is, they did produce the harmful product at issue at some point in time) The product involved is fungible The plaintiff cannot identify which defendant produced the fungible product which harmed her in particular, through no fault of her own A substantial share of the manufacturers who produced the product during the relevant time period are named as defendants in the action If these requirements are met, a rebuttable presumption arises in favor of the plaintiff; if she can prove actual damages, then a court may order each defendant to pay a percentage of such damages equal to its share of the market for the product at the time the product was used. A manufacturer may rebut the presumption and reduce its market share damages to zero by showing that its product could not have possibly injured the plaintiff (for example, by demonstrating that it did not manufacture the product during the time period relevant for that particular plaintiff). Mosk later explained in an oral history interview that the court got the idea for market share liability from the Fordham Law Review comment cited extensively in the Sindell opinion.

Dissent Associate Justice Frank K. Richardson wrote a dissent in which he accused the majority of judicial activism and argued that the judiciary should defer to the legislature, whose role it was to craft an appropriate solution to the problems presented by the unique nature of DES.

Problems of doctrine Courts after Sindell have refused to apply the market share doctrine to products other than drugs such as DES. The argument centers on the fact that a product must be fungible to hold all producers equally liable for any harm. If the product was not fungible, then different production methods or gross negligence in manufacturing might imply that some manufacturers were actually more culpable than others, yet they would only be required to pay up to their share of the market. The time period over which the harm occurred is also an issue: in Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association 690 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1997), a 1997 Pennsylvania case, the plaintiffs complained of the use of lead-based paint in their house and brought suit against Lead Industries Association. The court refused to apply the market share theory because the house had stood for over a century and many manufacturers of lead-based paint had since gone out of business, while others named in the suit had not existed at the time the house was painted. The court also noted that lead-based paint was not a fungible product and therefore, some of the manufacturers may not have been responsible for Skipworth's injuries.

Notes

References

Sources Epstein, Richard A. Cases and Materials on Torts, 8th edition. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2004 Gifford, Donald G. Suing the Tobacco and Lead Pigment Industries: Government Litigation as Public Health Prescription Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-472-11714-7

External links Text of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588, 607 P.2d 924 (1980) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Leagle CEB

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

In research: Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 1980 in California, 1980 in United States case law, Drug safety, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories in simple terms?

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588 (1980), was a landmark products liability decision of the Supreme Court of California which pioneered the doctrine of market share liability.

Why does Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories.