From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kush v. Abbott Laboratories

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 8, 1997
238 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

April 8, 1997


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered December 27, 1995, which granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who alleges that her mother ingested DES in Pennsylvania, where she was born in 1959 and resided until she moved to Massachusetts in 1984, is unable to identify the manufacturer of the DES her mother ingested, and urges application of the "market share" theory of liability. However, such is contrary to our recent precedent holding that where foreign residents' exposures to DES occurred in foreign States, and New York's connection to the actions is tenuous at best, "the substantive laws of the respective foreign States are applicable ( see, Schultz v. Boy Scouts, 65 N.Y.2d 189; Neumeier v. Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121, 128)" ( Godfrey v. Eli Lilly Co., 223 A.D.2d 427, 428, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 801).

Even assuming that plaintiff's injuries occurred in Massachusetts, where the effects of her mother's ingestion of DES became manifest, "the place of the wrong is considered to be the place where the last event necessary to make the actor liable occurred" ( Schultz v. Boy Scouts, supra, at 195). We agree with the Federal District Court (ED NY) that the relevant "last event" was either the ingestion of DES by plaintiff's mother or plaintiff's birth ( Ashley v. Abbott Labs., 789 F. Supp. 552, 567, appeal dismissed 7 F.3d 20), both of which occurred in Pennsylvania, and whose law therefore applies. Pennsylvania has not, as of this date, adopted a "market share" liability theory, described by its Supreme Court as a "significant departure" from its "general rule that a plaintiff, in order to recover, must establish that a particular defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries" ( Skipworth v. Lead Indus. Assn., 547 Pa. 224, 231, 690 A.2d 169, 172). As we noted in Godfrey v. Eli Lilly Co. ( supra, at 428), "it would be improper and presumptuous for the courts of this State to expand the theories of products liability recognized by Foreign States".

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Kush v. Abbott Laboratories

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 8, 1997
238 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Kush v. Abbott Laboratories

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of NEW YORK COUNTY DES ACTIONS. PATRICIA KUSH, Appellant, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 8, 1997

Citations

238 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
655 N.Y.S.2d 520

Citing Cases

In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation

See, e.g., Plummer v. Lederle Labs., 819 F.2d 349, 355 (2d Cir.1987); Ashley v. Abbott Labs., 789 F.Supp.…

Hamilton v. Accu-Tek

Schultz, 65 N.Y.2d at 195, 480 N.E.2d at 683, 491 N.Y.S.2d at 94. See also Pescatore v. Pan American World…