Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories
Citation: 26 Cal. 3d 588 (Cal. 1980)
Facts
Judith Sindell and other plaintiffs suffered injuries from DES (diethylstilbestrol), a drug prescribed to their mothers during pregnancy to prevent miscarriage. DES was manufactured by many companies from an identical formula. Because years had passed, plaintiffs could not identify which specific manufacturer had produced the DES their mothers took. Plaintiffs sued multiple DES manufacturers representing a substantial share of the market.
Issue
When a plaintiff cannot identify the specific manufacturer whose product caused her injury due to the fungible nature of the product and the passage of time, can she nonetheless recover in tort?
Holding
The California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who joins manufacturers representing a substantial share of the relevant market may recover, with each defendant liable for its proportionate market share of damages, unless a defendant can prove it did not manufacture the DES that injured the plaintiff.
Rule
Market share liability: where a plaintiff cannot identify the specific tortfeasor in a fungible-product case, liability is apportioned among defendant manufacturers in proportion to their share of the relevant market at the time of the plaintiff’s exposure.
Significance
Sindell extended the burden-shifting logic of Summers v. Tice to mass-tort contexts and created the market share liability doctrine. It is a landmark in products liability and causation law, enabling recovery where traditional but-for causation is impossible to establish. The doctrine has been adopted in varying forms by other states and remains a model for handling industry-wide toxic tort litigation.