Affirmation of Alternative Liability in DES Cases: Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Affirmation of Alternative Liability in DES Cases: Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Introduction

Abel v. Eli Lilly & Company is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Michigan, delivered on February 6, 1984. This case is one among numerous litigations initiated by daughters whose mothers had ingested diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen, during pregnancy, and their spouses against various manufacturers of DES. The plaintiffs allege that prenatal exposure to DES has resulted in cancer and other cellular abnormalities in their reproductive systems. The central legal issue revolves around the applicability of alternative liability and concert of action theories to establish manufacturer liability when the specific producer of DES responsible for the injury cannot be identified.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Michigan addressed whether plaintiffs could circumvent the traditional causation requirement in product liability actions by employing alternative liability and concert of action theories. Initially, the trial court had denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, but upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, leading to the current review. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged the necessary elements to support both alternative liability and concert of action claims. This decision effectively permits plaintiffs to hold multiple defendants jointly and severally liable for DES-related injuries, even when the specific manufacturer responsible cannot be pinpointed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In determining the applicability of alternative liability, the court extensively referenced and analyzed precedents such as SUMMERS v. TICE (California, 1948), which originally recognized alternative liability in situations where multiple defendants could have caused the plaintiff's injury but were individually indeterminate. Additionally, cases like Prosser, Torts and Holloway v. General Motors Corp were pivotal in shaping the court’s understanding of causation and liability in complex product litigation.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the doctrine of alternative liability, acknowledging its traditional application and recognizing the unique complexities presented by the DES cases. While Summers provided a foundational framework, the Michigan Supreme Court adapted the theory to accommodate the proliferation of plaintiffs and defendants, as well as the temporal and geographical spread of DES distribution. The court emphasized that plaintiffs must demonstrate that all named defendants acted tortiously and that plaintiffs are unable to identify the specific defendant responsible for their injury. This shift in burden of proof from the plaintiffs to the defendants represents a significant evolution in state jurisprudence, aimed at ensuring that innocent plaintiffs are not left without recourse due to the inherent difficulties in identifying a single responsible party among numerous manufacturers.

Impact

The affirmation of alternative liability in this case has profound implications for future product liability litigation, especially in scenarios involving mass-produced goods with multiple manufacturers. It enables plaintiffs to seek redress even when pinpointing a specific manufacturer is unfeasible, thereby broadening the scope of accountability for harmful products. Moreover, this decision may influence legislative considerations surrounding pharmaceutical advertising, production oversight, and record-keeping practices, as these factors directly impact the ability to identify responsible parties in similar litigations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Alternative Liability

Alternative liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to hold multiple defendants responsible for damages when it is impossible to determine which specific defendant caused the injury. In the context of DES litigation, where numerous manufacturers produced similar synthetic estrogens, plaintiffs can argue that each defendant bears responsibility because all contributed to the hazardous environment, even if only one may have actually caused the harm.

Concert of Action

Concert of action refers to a scenario where multiple defendants engage in a coordinated effort that results in the plaintiff's injury. This theory supports holding all involved parties liable, regardless of which specific entity directly caused the damage. In Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co., plaintiffs utilized this theory to assert that the collective negligence of all manufacturers in promoting and distributing DES led to their injuries.

Joint and Several Liability

Joint and several liability means that each defendant is individually responsible for the entire amount of the plaintiff’s damages, regardless of their proportionate fault. This principle ensures that a plaintiff can recover full compensation even if some defendants are insolvent or otherwise unable to pay their share. In this case, it allows plaintiffs to seek full damages from any of the defendants, ensuring they are not left without compensation due to the inability to identify the exact manufacturer.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Abel v. Eli Lilly & Company marks a significant development in product liability law, particularly concerning mass-produced pharmaceuticals with collective responsibility for consumer harm. By endorsing alternative liability and concert of action theories, the court has paved the way for plaintiffs to obtain justice despite the challenges of identifying specific defendants. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in adapting legal doctrines to address complex modern litigations, ensuring equitable outcomes for injured parties. As a precedent, it is poised to influence future cases involving similar circumstances, potentially fostering more rigorous accountability standards within the pharmaceutical industry and beyond.

Case Details

Year: 1984
Court: Supreme Court of Michigan.

Judge(s)

WILLIAMS, C.J.

Attorney(S)

Hayim I. Gross and Charfoos, Christenson, Gilbert Archer, P.C. (by Lawrence S. Charfoos, J. Douglas Peters, and Charles Nichols), for the plaintiffs. Shook, Hardy Bacon (by Lane D. Bauer, Leo P. Dreyer, Larry R. O'Neal, and Laura D. Stith) and Dickinson, Wright, McKean, Cudlip Moon (by John E.S. Scott and Robert S. Krause) for defendant Eli Lilly and Company. Lord, Bissell Brook (by Hugh Moore) and Schureman, Frakes, Glass Wulfmeier (by John C. Frakes, of counsel) for defendant Abbott Laboratories. Vandeveer, Garzia, Tonkin, Kerr Heaphy, P.C. (by Edmund M. Brady, Jr.), for defendants The Blue Line Chemical Company and William H. Rorer, Inc. Jenkins, Nystrom Sterlacci, P.C. (by Dennis H. Nystrom), for defendant Burroughs Wellcome Company. Johnson, Campbell Moesta, P.C. (by Reginald S. Johnson), for defendant Central Pharmacal Company. Tyler Canham, P.C. (by David M. Tyler), for defendant Cole Pharmacal Company. MacArthur Cheatham (by Charles C. Cheatham) for defendant Kremers-Urban Company. Warner, Norcross Judd (by Wallson G. Knack and John D. Tully) and Martin, Bacon Martin, P.C. (by James N. Martin), for defendant McNeil Laboratories, Inc. Seavitt, Westcott, Stowe, Magnuson Beeby (by Perry J. Seavitt and Gregory A. Reynolds) for defendant Merck, Sharpe Dohme. Garan, Lucow, Miller, Seward, Cooper Becker (by Albert A. Miller) for defendant Rexall Drug Company. Markle Markle (by James A. Markle) and (James S. Goulding, of counsel) for defendants Schering Corporation and White Laboratories, Inc. Plunkett, Cooney, Rutt, Watters, Stanczyk Pedersen (by William P. Cooney) for defendant E.R. Squibb and Sons, Inc. Dice, Sweeney, Sullivan Feikens, P.C. (by David R. Getto), for defendant S.J. Tutag and Company. Kitch Suhrheinrich, P.C. (by James G. Smith), for defendant The Upjohn Company. Lacey Jones (by Dennis E. Zacharski) for defendant Vale Chemical Company. Amicus Curiae: Richard A. Epstein and Honigman, Miller, Schwartz Cohn (by David A. Ettinger) for the American Insurance Association.

Comments