BRENNER V. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY
263 A.D.2d 165 (App. Div. 1999)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Cyanamid (D) appealed an order denying in part their motion for
summary judgment in lead poisoning case, questioning whether a market share theory for
determining liability and apportioning damages should apply where identification of the
manufacturer could not be ascertained.
FACTS: Brenner (P) sued D alleging that their child became ill after ingesting lead-based
paint chips and inhaling dust from deterioration of lead-based paint applied to the walls of
their residence. Ps had moved into an apartment in a house that was built in 1926 when the
child was under 2. Shortly thereafter, the boy was diagnosed with severe lead poisoning as
confirmed by blood tests and the presence of 'lead lines' on radiographs of the child's long
bones. Richard sustained permanent injuries to his central nervous system that were
proximately caused by his ingestion of the paint chips and dust containing white lead
pigments, including dry white lead carbonate, dry white lead sulfate, and dry white lead in
oil. Ds were named as the manufacturers or successors in interest to manufacturers of white
lead carbonate during the period from 1926, the year the house in which plaintiffs resided
was built, until 1955, the year lead-based paint was no longer sold for interior residential
use. Ps alleged negligence and strict products liability. P was unable to identify the
manufacturer of the white lead carbonate found in their residence. They claimed enterprise
liability, market share liability, and alternative liability. Ds moved for summary judgment
and it was granted on some but not the market share liability. Ds' appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment