Hymowitz v eli lilly co 1 p is suing for birth

This preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 12 pages.

HYMOWITZ v. ELI LILLY & CO.1. P is suing for birth defects she suffered because her mother took a drug that was harmful topregnant women (supposed to prevent miscarriages, just caused birth defects. )2. The court allowed P to target anyone who sold the drug during the time her mother took the pills and marketed them to pregnant women.Statute: INFANCY, INSANITYStatute: ACTIONS TO BE COMMENCED WITHIN THREE YEARSStatute: CERTAIN ACTION TO BE COMMENCED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF DISCOVERY*Some statutes create limitations on people that do not know they suffered effects of something until after the statute of limitations runs out. BLACK v. ABEX CORP.1. Failed in market share liability case because asbestos in break pads were not fungible materials (meaning identical products).2. If the products are not identical the P would have to find exactly which product caused the harm.F. Liability for Lost Chance of Recovery or for Increased Risk of Eventual HarmI. Limits on Liability- Duty, Foreseeability, and Proximate CausePALSGRAF v. LONG ISLAND RAILWAY CO.1. Guy pushed onto a train.2. dropped package of explosives3. boom from explosion caused bell to drop onto P.4. She sued for injuries.5. Andrew stated that everyone has a duty to everyone.6. Cardozo stated that the harm caused was not foreseeable and she was outside the radius of danger so there was no duty.II. Duty
Types of duty:a) abstract (reasonable person standard.)b) generalc) specific (illegal to run red lights.)HEGYES v. UNJIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.1. Female driver in an accident.2. Dr. had to put a shunt in her abdomen3. Later she became pregnant and had complications with the shunt.4. Sued person who caused accident for her unborn child.5. Court ruled there was no special relationship and D had no duty to an unborn child.DYKEMA v. GUS MACKER ENTERPRISES, INC.1. Case determined no duty, because there was no special relationship.Special Relationships:1. a common carrier with its passengers.2. Inn keeper/guests3. Business owner/public&customers4. employer/employees (while at work, must have been rendered helpless or injured there)5. School/ students.6. Landlord/ tenants,7. Custodian/those in custody if required to take custody and has superior ability to protect.GRAFF v. BEARD1. Social host provided alcohol at a party.2. Person got too drunk at their party and hit someone while on way home.3. P is suing the social host.4. Court denied liability of social host, because does not want to make it social policy to have to watch and control other peoples behavior.Statute: CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SOCIAL HOSTSStatute: CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS PROVIDING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGESKUBERT v. BEST1. Person was texting and driving.2. P suing third party texter who was not present.3. Courts ruled in favor of the D.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture