## Facts

- In 1949, Cleo Rorman, while pregnant with Linda Mulcahy, was prescribed and ingested diethylstilbestrol (DES).
- Plaintiffs alleged Linda was injured in utero from DES exposure and later suffered reproductive injuries leading to premature births of two children, who also allegedly sustained injuries.
- Due to the passage of time, plaintiffs could not identify the manufacturer of the DES ingested and sued numerous DES manufacturers under multiple tort and warranty theories.
- The record reflected documented DES sales in Ames, Iowa, in 1949 by only three defendants (Eli Lilly, Abbott, and Upjohn), though plaintiffs sought to impose liability on a larger group.
- In federal court, defendants moved for summary judgment for lack of evidence identifying any defendant as the manufacturer or seller of the ingested DES.
- The federal district court certified questions to the Iowa Supreme Court on whether Iowa law recognizes liability theories allowing recovery without identifying the specific manufacturer.

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa law permits DES plaintiffs who cannot identify the manufacturer to recover under market-share liability, alternative liability, or enterprise liability.
2. If any such theory applies, what proof plaintiffs must produce and what defendants must show to avoid liability.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court answered the certified questions in the negative.
- The court declined to adopt market-share liability, alternative liability (as proposed for DES cases), and enterprise liability.
- The court refused to shift the burden of product identification from plaintiffs to defendants.
- Iowa reaffirmed the rule that a products-liability plaintiff must prove the particular defendant manufactured or supplied the injury-causing product.

## Legal Principles

- In Iowa products-liability actions, causation requires proof that the defendant manufactured or supplied the specific product that caused the injury.
- Market-share liability was rejected because it reallocates proof burdens and risks imposing liability on defendants who did not make or sell the injurious product.
- Alternative liability requires assurance that the actual wrongdoer is among the defendants; without proof that the full set of possible tortfeasors is before the court, burden shifting is improper.
- Enterprise liability was rejected because it would impose broad, industry-wide responsibility without adequate individualized causation proof and was not suited to the structure of the DES market.
- Major restructuring of causation and liability allocation in this context was treated as a policy choice better left to legislative action.

## Conclusion

Iowa law does not relax product identification requirements in DES litigation; plaintiffs must prove that each sued defendant manufactured or supplied the DES that caused the alleged injuries, and Iowa will not impose liability through market-share, alternative, or enterprise theories to compensate for the inability to identify the specific manufacturer.


Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Co., 386 N.W.2d 67 (Iowa 1986)