Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P filed suit against Ds seeking recovery of damages resulting from injuries allegedly caused by her use of the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device manufactured and distributed by Robins. P became pregnant after insertion of the Dalkon Shield and in the first trimester suffered a spontaneous septic abortion of twin fetuses. P’s complaint sought recovery on the theories of negligence, breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, strict liability, fraud, conspiracy, and outrageous conduct. P claimed that D was aware from test results that the effectiveness of the device in preventing pregnancy was lower than it advertised and from both test results and the reports of physicians that spontaneous septic abortions often occurred in connection with its use. P alleges that D concealed these reports and continued to issue false advertising to the medical community and the public about the superior efficacy and safety of its contraceptive. D was granted its motion for summary judgment. In granting that motion, the district court addressed two issues: whether the fraud claim was a cause of action separate from the products liability claim for statute of limitations purposes and whether D was equitably estopped by its conduct from raising the bar of the statute of limitations. The court ruled that the fraud claim should not be treated separately from the products liability claim and was therefore barred by expiration of the three-year limitation applicable to products liability actions and that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was inapplicable. This appeal resulted.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co