Scribd
Upload
31 views1 page

Pgs 356-373

The document summarizes two tort cases: 1) Kelly v. Gwinnell: A case about holding hosts liable for their guests' actions that was later changed by the legislature. 2) Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.: A case where a grandmother took the drug DES while pregnant, causing injuries to the plaintiff's mother and plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff who was injured due to injuries to her mother from DES exposure could not recover damages, as she was too removed from the original injury caused by the drug companies. While laws were changed to help DES victims get compensation, a granddaughter is too far removed to establish liability.

Uploaded by

Amber Smith
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views1 page

Pgs 356-373

The document summarizes two tort cases: 1) Kelly v. Gwinnell: A case about holding hosts liable for their guests' actions that was later changed by the legislature. 2) Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.: A case where a grandmother took the drug DES while pregnant, causing injuries to the plaintiff's mother and plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff who was injured due to injuries to her mother from DES exposure could not recover damages, as she was too removed from the original injury caused by the drug companies. While laws were changed to help DES victims get compensation, a granddaughter is too far removed to establish liability.

Uploaded by

Amber Smith
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Torts Ch.

6 pgs 356-373 10/19/2010

3. Public Policy
Kelly v. Gwinnell
Relevant Facts—
Procedural History—
Issue Presented—
Holding—
Reasoning—
Judgment/Disposition—
*Skipped because we already did it in class. Maybe go back and do it for outline.
The legislature went back and changed this because they did not want to hold hosts liable for
their guests.

Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.


Relevant Facts— The P’s grandmother took DES while pregnant with the P’s mom. The P’s
mom developed abnormalities of her reproductive system from her in utero exposure and
these abnormalities resulted in several miscarriages and the premature birth of the P. The
P suffers from cerebral palsy and other disabilities.
Procedural History— P’s claims dismissed by the trial court and she appealed. The appellate
division affirmed the dismissal of the causes of action based on negligence, breach of
warranty and fraud, but reinstated the strict liability count, holding that strong public
policy for DES victims justified recognizing a strict products liability cause of action.
Issue Presented— Can the granddaughter of a woman who ingested DES receive damages from
the drug companies? Where does the liability end?
Holding— No. No change to the precedent that the granddaughter is too removed from the
injury. The infant P was not exposed to the D’s dangerous product or negligent conduct; rather, P
injured as a consequence of injuries to the reproductive system of mother. The distinctions
between this case and the previous rule that an injury to a mother which results in injuries to a
later-conceived child does not establish a cause of action in favor of the child against the original
tort-feasor.
Reasoning— The Legislature modified the laws on Statute of Limitations and adopted a market-
share liability calculation in order to make sure victims of DES were compensated.
However, a granddaughter is too far away from the injury.
Judgment/Disposition— Decline to recognize a cause of action

BY WAY OF SYNTHESIS

4. Shifting Responsibility

You might also like