Notes and Comments

1.What if a defendant in a situation similar to Sindell can successfully establish that it did not in fact manufacture the specific drug which caused plaintiff’s injury? For example,it did not actually market its product in the specific geographical location where plaintiff was during a period of time when plaintiff’s injury was sustained.The New York court in such a situation declined joint and several liability,defining market share as in the national market.See Hymowitz v.Eli Lilly and Co.,73 N.Y.2d 487,541 N.Y.S.2d 941 (1989).

2.Why should the defendants share the liability when in fact there could be only one of them that was actually responsible for the plaintiff’s injury? Is it logically fair for the rest of the joined defendants to pay for damages not flowing from their products? What is the policy consideration for such a decision to place the burden on the defendant manufacturers,and how far it could be extended for industrialized products? For example,suppose the industry standard at that time was based on national guidelines of pharmaceutical product safety,which was established relying on scientific research results then.Should the government also be held liable to some extend? Should the scientists?(https://www.daowen.com)

3.In Sindell,the plaintiff was not considered to be at fault in any way (naturally,she was not yet born when her mother was administered the drug,DES).However,the mother took the drug in order to avoid miscarriage,which was a benefit for the plaintiff;otherwise,there wouldn’t be she.Despite the cancer-cau-s ing effect of DES became known years later,wasn’t her mother partly responsible for some reason?