| Venue: | NY Ct. App. |
| Facts: | Lots of people took diethylstilbestrol (DES) over many years and manufactured by many firms. Many years later, their daughters had an increased risk of cancer. |
| Posture: | Summary judgment, basically, for many defendants; statute of limitations and causation are the main concerns. The statute of limitations stuff is made more complex because NY enacted some sort of revival statute on behald of DES claims, and some contend that this is unconstitutional. |
| Issue: | May a DES plaintiff recover against manufacturers when the producer who made the drug can't be identified? |
| Holding: | Yes, and we're going to make up some entirely new stuff to support that finding. |
| Rule: | We're going to allocate recoveries based on the national market share. This is joint liability only, not several. These rules skirt normal tort law, so they're limited to DES cases only. |
| Reasoning: | Society demands this, so judicial action is requred. The situation is too complex to handle any other way: lots of manufacturers are gone, people might have taken the drug in many states, and so on. |
| Dicta: | A plaintiff should not be able to recover from a defendant who could not have caused the injury. |