Menne v. Celotex Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In our contemporary complex industrialized society, advances in science and technology create fungible goods which may harm consumers and which cannot be traced to any specific producer. The response of the courts can be either to adhere rigidly to prior doctrine, denying recovery to those injured by such products, or to fashion remedies to meet these changing needs. * * * “The most persuasive reason for finding plaintiff states a cause of action is that advanced in Summers : as between an innocent plaintiff and negligent defendants, the latter should bear the cost of the injury. Here, as in Summers , plaintiff is not at fault in failing to provide evidence of causation, and although the absence of such evidence is not attributable to the defendants either, their conduct in marketing a drug the effects of which are delayed for many years played -a significant role in creating the unavailability of proof. (i* ‡ * “Where, as here, all defendants produced a drug from an identical formula and the manufacturer of the DES which caused plaintiff’s injuries cannot be identified through no fault of plaintiff, a modification of the rule of Summers is warranted. As we have seen, an undiluted Summers rationale is inappropriate to shift the burden of proof of causation to defendants because if we measure the chance that any particular manufacturer supplied the injury-causing product by the number of producers of DES, there is a possibility that none of the five defendants in this case pr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.

2. “In the course of your deliberations, you will be required to make certain findings, including the following: 37 Did one or more of the defendants supply asbestos-containing products at plaintiff's workplace? 38 Was the plaintiff exposed to quantities of asbestos dust from defendants' products at his workplace? 39 Did plaintiff sustain mesothelioma and/or asbestosis caused by his exposure to asbestos dust from defendants' products at the workplace? 40 Should the jury make these findings from a preponderance of the evidence, the burden shifts to each defendant to prove its products did not cause or significantly contribute to plaintiff's disease and injuries. If a defendant proves to your satisfaction that, more likely than not, its products were not contributing factors, you may find for that defendant and against plaintiff.... 41 .... 42 Special interrogatories are provided to assist you in these deliberations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Menne v. Celotex Corp.

3. “Each defendant is entitled to a fair and separate consideration of its case, ... [b]ut where the wrongful acts of two or more manufacturers combine producing a single, indivisible injury, both are liable for that injury even though there was no common duty, common design or concerted action. Thus, if you find plaintiff was exposed to defendants' asbestos products and that exposure proximately or legally caused his injuries, you may find for plaintiff and against any one or more of the defendants who fail to establish their products were not a contributing cause of plaintiff's injuries.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Menne v. Celotex Corp.