--- title: "Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/sindell-v-abbott-laboratories --- # Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories Sindell established the groundbreaking market share liability theory, allowing plaintiffs to recover from multiple manufacturers of a fungible product in proportion to each manufacturer's market share, even when the plaintiff cannot identify which specific manufacturer produced the product that caused her injury. This was a creative solution to the identification problem in mass tort litigation. ## Citation 26 Cal. 3d 588, 607 P.2d 924 (1980) ## Year 1980 ## Court Supreme Court of California ## Facts Judith Sindell and other plaintiffs alleged that they developed cancer as a result of their mothers' ingestion of diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy. DES was a synthetic estrogen prescribed to prevent miscarriages and was manufactured by hundreds of pharmaceutical companies using an identical formula. Because DES was a fungible product and decades had passed, the plaintiffs could not identify which specific manufacturer produced the DES their mothers had taken. ## Procedural History The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrers and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court of California reversed, adopting market share liability as a theory of recovery. ## Issue Whether a plaintiff who cannot identify the specific manufacturer of a fungible product that caused her injury can hold all manufacturers of that product liable in proportion to their market share. ## Holding The court held that when a plaintiff cannot identify the specific manufacturer of a product that caused injury, each manufacturer of a substantial share of the market may be held liable for its proportionate share of the judgment. Each defendant's liability corresponds to the likelihood that it produced the particular product that caused the plaintiff's injury, as measured by its share of the relevant market. ## Reasoning The court reasoned that the traditional requirement of identifying the specific tortfeasor would leave plaintiffs without any remedy, despite clear evidence that one of the defendants caused the injury. The court adapted the Summers v. Tice alternative liability theory to the mass tort context, shifting the burden to each defendant to prove that it did not cause the plaintiff's injury. Because DES was manufactured from an identical formula, each manufacturer's market share served as a reasonable approximation of the probability that it produced the product that harmed the plaintiff. The court emphasized the injustice of allowing manufacturers to escape liability simply because their product was fungible. ## Dissent Justice Richardson dissented, arguing that the majority abandoned the fundamental tort requirement of causation. He contended that market share liability imposes liability on defendants who may not have caused the plaintiff's injury and that the judicial branch should not create such radical new theories of liability. He argued this was properly a matter for legislative action. ## Impact Sindell created the market share liability theory, which was subsequently adopted or modified by courts in several other jurisdictions. The theory has been primarily applied in DES cases but has been proposed for other fungible products. The case significantly influenced mass tort litigation and the development of proportional liability theories. It remains controversial, with critics arguing it abandons the causation requirement and supporters arguing it provides essential justice for mass tort victims. ## Key Quotes - Each defendant will be held liable for the proportion of the judgment represented by its share of that market unless it demonstrates that it could not have made the product which caused plaintiff's injuries. - From a broader policy standpoint, defendants are better able to bear the cost of injury resulting from the manufacture of a defective product. - The manufacturer is in the best position to discover and guard against defects in its products and to warn of harmful effects; thus, holding it liable for defects and failures to warn of harmful effects will provide an incentive to product safety. ## Related Cases - summers-v-tice - greenman-v-yuba-power-products - escola-v-coca-cola-bottling - macpherson-v-buick-motor-co ## Exam Relevance Market share liability is a favorite exam topic. Students should be prepared to explain when market share liability applies, distinguish it from alternative liability (Summers v. Tice), and discuss its requirements, including the fungibility of the product and the joinder of a substantial share of the market. ## Study Tips - Know the requirements for market share liability: fungible product, inability to identify the specific manufacturer, and joinder of defendants representing a substantial share of the market. - Distinguish market share liability from Summers v. Tice alternative liability — in Summers, all possible tortfeasors were before the court; in Sindell, they were not. - Understand that market share liability is proportional — each defendant pays only its market share, not joint and several liability. - Be prepared to discuss the policy trade-off between compensating victims and imposing liability on potentially innocent defendants. ## Doctrine Established Market Share Liability --- Source: [Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/sindell-v-abbott-laboratories)