PLEASE READ BEFORE RESPONDING:

 

A family with a small child moves often. The family has lived in two different apartment complexes in the past six months.

While living in the apartments, the child, Hilary, unknowingly ingests white lead paint chips and lead paint dust from

the walls and ceiling. As a result, Hilary is diagnosed with lead poisoning. Consequently, she suffered cognitive injuries

related to high levels of lead in her blood.

 

The apartments were both built around 1920. In the state where Hilary and her family lived, lead paint became illegal

for interior surfaces in 1976. So there is a 56-year period when the lead paint could have legally been put on the walls

of the apartments. The apartments could have been repainted numerous times, and there is no way to determine which

specific lead paint companies the paint came from. In fact, it is possible that multiple companies' paint affected Hilary.

 

Hilary's family was successful in suing the landlord and insurer of the apartments. In addition,

the child's family brought litigation against the manufacturers of lead paint. Even though the paint

was not illegal, the plaintiffs present evidence that the lead paint industry knew about the potential

dangers and did not stop using the product.

 

CONCERN; the case study indicates that the family has successfully sued the landlord and insurer of the apartments.

now they are suing the manufacturers of the lead paint under a market share liability case,

 

QUESTION: if the judge rules favor of Hilary's family (in a market share liability case),who potentially would need to pay for the damages? WHY?

 

IF YOU ANSWER THE LANDLORD/INSURER DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUED PREVIOUSLY?

DOES MARKET SHARE LIABILITY ONLY APPLY WHEN THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ARE TO NUMEROUS OR CANT BE EXACTLY IDENTIFIED