Gorman v. Abbott Laboratories

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Gorman v. Abbott Laboratories

599 A.2d 1364, 1991 R.I. LEXIS 203, 1991 WL 263700

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedDecember 12, 1991

Docket90-562-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 599 A.2d 1364 (Gorman v. Abbott Laboratories) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gorman v. Abbott Laboratories, 599 A.2d 1364, 1991 R.I. LEXIS 203, 1991 WL 263700 (R.I. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument December 2, 1991, pursuant to an order which had directed both parties to appear and show cause why their respective appeals should not be denied and dismissed. Defendants appeal from an order granting the plaintiff an extension of 120 days to transmit the record to this court following her filing of a notice of appeal. The plaintiff appeals from the granting of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the granting of the extension of time did not constitute an abuse of discretion. We further hold that the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants was correct as a matter of law. We are not willing to adopt the market-share doctrine which has been accepted in the State of California in Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 26 Cal.3d 588, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 607 P.2d 924 (1980). See also D. Fischer, Products Liability — An Analysis of Market Share Liability, 34 Vand.L.Rev. 1623 (1982). We are of the opinion that the establishment of liability requires the identification of the specific defendant responsible for the injury-

Consequently the appeals of both parties are denied and dismissed. The summary judgment entered in the Superior Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument December 2, 1991, pursuant to an order which had directed both parties to appear and show cause why their respective appeals should not be denied and dismissed. Defendants appeal from an order granting the plaintiff an extension of 120 days to transmit the record to this court following her filing of a notice of appeal. The plaintiff appeals from the granting of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the granting of the extension of time did not constitute an abuse of discretion. We further hold that the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants was correct as a matter of law. We are not willing to adopt the market-share doctrine which has been accepted in the State of California in Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 26 Cal.3d 588, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 607 P.2d 924 (1980). See also D. Fischer, Products Liability — An Analysis of Market Share Liability, 34 Vand.L.Rev. 1623 (1982). We are of the opinion that the establishment of liability requires the identification of the specific defendant responsible for the injury-

Consequently the appeals of both parties are denied and dismissed. The summary judgment entered in the Superior Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 A.2d 1364, 1991 R.I. LEXIS 203, 1991 WL 263700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorman-v-abbott-laboratories-ri-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack