Suing Based on Market-Share Liability
Was it fair to allow suit against companies based on their "market share" involvement in the production and sale of DES (market-share liability)?
If not, should anyone be held accountable for the injury caused to DES-daughters?
Is it fair to sue only those companies that captured the majority market share?
Would it be fair to sue all of the companies who sold DES during this period (enterprise liability)?
Is it fair to sue a company with a share of the market, even if the company can prove its product could not possibly have been the one Jane Sindell's mother took?
Attachments
Solution Preview
LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
Was it fair to allow suit against companies based on their "market share" involvement in the production and sale of DES (market-share liability)?
- Firstly, US history shows that it is "fair" to allow suit against any entity for ANY reason. Therefore, based on "market share" involvement in the production and sale of DES constitutes a right to sue also. Long ago someone sued McDonalds after purchasing a cup of coffee and spilling it on themselves; perhaps, they may have considered suing the coffee manufacturer, the coffee machine company, and the employee whom poured the coffee too. However, McDonalds was held responsible for the coffee being too hot, thus, somewhat causing the burn. Lawsuits can be outrageous, but the "right to sue" does exist and companies AND individuals should do everything within their power to protect themselves. Even visitors to one's ...
Solution Summary
This solution of 531 words explains the legal and ethical issues about suits against companies based on market share, and discusses issues on injury, captured majority market shared, selling DES and products on the market.