In re DES Market Share Litigation, 79 N.Y.2d 301 (1992)
Plaintiffs in DES (diethylstilbestrol) cases have a constitutional right to a jury trial on the issue of market share liability, as market share is an integral part of the tort cause of action for money damages and not a separate equitable proceeding.
Summary
This case addresses whether DES plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial on the issue of market share, a liability theory adopted in Hymowitz v. Lilly & Co. The New York Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs possess a constitutional right to a jury trial regarding market share. The court reasoned that establishing market share is a factual component of the plaintiffs’ underlying tort claims for money damages, not a separate equitable action. Severing and consolidating the market share issue for trial does not extinguish the right to a jury trial. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, ensuring plaintiffs’ right to a jury trial on the market share issue.
Facts
DES, a synthetic estrogen, was prescribed to pregnant women from 1947 to 1971 to prevent miscarriages. It was later found to cause vaginal adenocarcinoma and other health problems in the daughters of women who took DES. Due to the difficulty in identifying the specific manufacturer of the DES ingested by their mothers, many DES plaintiffs were unable to pursue traditional tort claims. In Hymowitz, the Court of Appeals adopted a market share theory, holding manufacturers liable based on their share of the national DES market. Following Hymowitz, the market share issue was severed from individual DES cases and consolidated for a single trial.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, Erie County, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a jury trial on the market share issue, deeming it a newly created remedy and not a cause of action itself. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Hymowitz modified a pre-existing legal cause of action and that the plaintiffs were thus entitled to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether DES plaintiffs are constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on the issue of market share liability.
Holding
Yes, because market share determination is an integral part of the plaintiffs’ cause of action for money damages and not a separate equitable proceeding.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its decision on Article I, § 2 of the New York Constitution, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in cases where it was traditionally available. CPLR 4101 also codifies this right for actions seeking a judgment for a sum of money only. The court rejected the argument that Hymowitz created a new equitable remedy, stating that Hymowitz merely modified the traditional causation requirement by allowing liability based on market share rather than direct identification of the manufacturer. The court emphasized that determining market share remains a factual issue essential to establishing the defendants’ culpability. The court stated, “[W]hen we used the word ‘equitable’ in Hymowitz, we were not categorizing the market share theory; rather, we were indicating the extent to which our decision was compelled by simple fairness.” The Court further reasoned that the market share inquiry is not a preliminary issue but is directly tied to the ability of the plaintiffs to recover damages. “The market share percentages for each of the 24 years and the concomitant determination of each defendants’ ultimate culpability will dictate the ability of all plaintiffs to recover damages in their main actions.” Severing the issue for trial does not eliminate the right to a jury trial. The Court also dismissed the argument that the complexity of the market share proceeding transforms it into an equitable cause of action. The court concluded that the right to a jury trial remains intact because market share is a legal issue within a tort action for money damages.