Kensinger

Kensinger v. Abbott Laboratories

Bad Law
171 Cal. App. 3d 376·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2421·217 Cal. Rptr. 313
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 22, 1985A021931California3,484 words

Opinion

Opinion

Newsom, J.

Appellant filed a complaint for damages against numerous pharmaceutical companies, some of which are respondents herein, on November 25, 1980, alleging the following causes of action: negligence; strict products liability; breach of implied warranty; breach of express warranty; and fraud. The complaint alleges that respondents manufactured, distributed and sold diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogen popularly known as DES, a substance to which she was exposed in útero in late 1958 and early 1959, causing her to contract clear cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina and cervix many years later.

After undertaking extensive discovery, respondent Eli Lilly & Company (hereafter Lilly) filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that appellant’s action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (3)). The remaining respondents joined in Lilly’s motion, and moved for summary judgment on the additional ground that they did not manufacture or market the product which caused appellant’s injuries.

After a full hearing on the motions, in the course of which deposition testimony and declarations were received as evidence, the trial court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.