In the case of Miryam v White Lead Carbonated Paint, the manufacturers of the paint company shouldn’t be held liable for the reasons listed below. Due to the Wisconsin statue
895.045. Statue 895.045 section 5 sub section 4 states "If more than 25 years have passed between the date that the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product last manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted the specific product chemically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant's injury and the date that the claimants cause of action accrued". However, that being said if it has been 25 or more years the company cannot be held liable for the harm of the product this happened between the years 1974-1999.
That is exactly 25 years. Miryam moved into a dilapidated old farm house that had the paint …show more content…
She then placed a law suit on all lead paint distributors from 1900-1974 not knowing which companies' product caused the damages. In relation, to Collins v. Eli Lilly co. The court said that without knowing what company caused the harm she couldn’t sue all 5 companies unless she found out who's medicine actually caused the cancer. According, to Burton v. Am. Cyanamid co.
The count states if Miryam cannot prove what company caused her son a cognitive disorder, placing a lawsuit on all the companies would not be a feasible idea. Miryam hasn’t proved that there is something in the paint that caused this and hasn’t established a prima facie to the case.
Since prima facie wasn't proven , this isn't a feasible cause to go after the companies.
Under statue 895.045 section 2 all the criteria need to be met, sub section b is not met
895.045. Statue 895.045 section 5 sub section 4 states "If more than 25 years have passed between the date that the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product last manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted the specific product chemically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant's injury and the date that the claimants cause of action accrued". However, that being said if it has been 25 or more years the company cannot be held liable for the harm of the product this happened between the years 1974-1999.
That is exactly 25 years. Miryam moved into a dilapidated old farm house that had the paint …show more content…
She then placed a law suit on all lead paint distributors from 1900-1974 not knowing which companies' product caused the damages. In relation, to Collins v. Eli Lilly co. The court said that without knowing what company caused the harm she couldn’t sue all 5 companies unless she found out who's medicine actually caused the cancer. According, to Burton v. Am. Cyanamid co.
The count states if Miryam cannot prove what company caused her son a cognitive disorder, placing a lawsuit on all the companies would not be a feasible idea. Miryam hasn’t proved that there is something in the paint that caused this and hasn’t established a prima facie to the case.
Since prima facie wasn't proven , this isn't a feasible cause to go after the companies.
Under statue 895.045 section 2 all the criteria need to be met, sub section b is not met