## Facts

- Karen Enright was born prematurely in 1981 and suffered cerebral palsy and other disabilities allegedly caused by extreme prematurity.
- Karen’s maternal grandmother ingested diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy, and Karen’s mother (Patricia) was allegedly injured in utero by that exposure.
- Plaintiffs alleged DES caused Patricia reproductive abnormalities, leading to miscarriages and, ultimately, Karen’s premature birth and resulting injuries.
- Karen (through her parents) and her parents individually sued several DES manufacturers on theories including negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, and strict products liability.
- The trial court dismissed Karen’s claims; the Appellate Division reinstated only Karen’s strict-products-liability claim based on public policy favoring remedies for DES victims.
- The manufacturers appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether New York law recognizes a cause of action by a “third generation” plaintiff for injuries allegedly resulting from a preconception tort committed against the plaintiff’s mother.
2. Whether strict products liability provides a basis for such a claim where negligence-based preconception claims are not recognized.
3. Whether DES-related policy concerns justify expanding manufacturers’ duty to persons not yet conceived at the time of the alleged tortious conduct.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed Karen’s strict-products-liability claim.
- Relying on Albala v. City of New York, the court held that no cause of action accrues to a child for injuries attributed to a preconception tort to the mother.
- The court declined to create a DES-specific exception expanding duty to third-generation claimants.
- The court rejected attempts to distinguish Albala on the ground that the remaining claim sounded in strict liability rather than negligence.
- The court emphasized remoteness and the need to confine liability within reasonable limits to avoid indeterminate, multi-generational exposure.

## Legal Principles

- New York does not recognize claims by a child for injuries allegedly caused by tortious conduct directed at the mother before the child’s conception.
- The bar on preconception tort claims applies even when the theory is strict products liability rather than negligence.
- Public policy favoring compensation for DES-related injuries supports procedural adjustments to prove existing rights, but does not justify creating new substantive duties to persons not yet conceived.
- Courts may limit duty and proximate cause where extending liability would be too remote and would lack manageable boundaries.

## Conclusion

The New York Court of Appeals held that a third-generation plaintiff may not recover for injuries allegedly traceable to DES-induced reproductive harm to her mother occurring before conception, and dismissed the claim whether framed in negligence or strict products liability.


Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co., 77 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 1991)