Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Skipworth (P) was born in 1988, and between 1990 and 1991 she was hospitalized for lead poisoning on three separate occasions. Testing of the residence where she lived revealed the presence of lead-based paint at various locations throughout the home. P then filed an action through her legal guardian and mother against several manufacturers of lead pigment and their successors as well as trade association (D). P alleged physical and neuropsychological injuries that resulted from the lead poisoning from the paint. There was no way to identify when the paint was put on the house nor which manufacturer it came from. P stipulated that they could not identify the manufacturer of the lead pigment which P ingested, and admitted that they could not identify when such pigment was made, sold, or applied to her home. P just sued all manufacturers or their successors from 1870 to present under collective liability, market share liability, alternative liability, conspiracy, and concert of action. D filed a motion for summary judgment. It was granted. The Superior Court affirmed. The Superior Court noted that it nor the legislature had adopted market share liability as a theory of recovery in products liability actions.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co