In re Allied Chemical Corp.: 'Cause' for Celebration By Defendants?

Unfortunately for many defendants, ever-more complex lawsuits and tenuous theories of liability have threatened to bury this basic principle. Some courts have gone so far as to eliminate the causation link between a particular product and the harm alleged. See, e.g., K. Cailteux and B. Gibson, 'Designer Liability: A Trap for the Unsuspecting Manufacturer or Former Manufacturer,' Product Liability Law & Strategy (August 2007) (describing instances of liability for injuries not caused by a manufacturer's product).

The problem is particularly evident in large tort suits. Increasingly, counsel file mass tort actions involving hundreds of plaintiffs and claim a wide variety of harms allegedly caused by dozens, if not hundreds, of defendants. Frequently, these complaints are filled with invective against the conduct of defendants and morbid details of the injuries suffered by plaintiffs. Conspicuously absent from these suits, however, is the explanation for how a particular defendant's product 'caused' the injuries for which plaintiffs seek compensation. Even if the plaintiffs in such cases can come forward with little or no linkage between their injuries and the manufacturer's product, however, many defendants choose to settle the cases rather than endure years of costly discovery and the uncertain results of a jury trial.