Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co. N.Y. Ct. App.,

77 N.Y.2d 377 (1991)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P's maternal grandmother ingested DES during a pregnancy which resulted in the birth of Patricia Enright on January 29, 1960. P alleges that because of her in utero exposure to DES, she developed a variety of abnormalities and deformities in her reproductive system. As a result, several of her pregnancies terminated in spontaneous abortions, and another resulted in the premature birth of Karen (P2). P2 suffers from cerebral palsy and other disabilities that P attributes to her premature birth and, ultimately, to her grandmother's ingestion of DES. P sued Eli Lilly (D), the manufacturer of DES. P sued individually and on behalf of their daughter against several manufacturers of DES. Ds sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations, by Ps' inability to identify the manufacturer of the drug ingested by P2's grandmother. Ds also argued that P2's claims of a preconception tort presented no cognizable cause of action. The trial court dismissed all claims by P2 but still allowed P’s claims against D. The Appellate Division modified by reinstating the cause of action brought on behalf of P2 based upon strict products liability: the public policy in favor of providing a remedy for DES victims justified recognizing a strict products liability cause of action. The court of appeals granted review.