## Facts

- Dominique Skipworth, a minor, suffered lead poisoning and related alleged physical and neuropsychological injuries.
- She was hospitalized three times for lead poisoning between September 1990 and May 1991 and received additional outpatient treatment in August 1991 and June 1992.
- During the relevant period, she lived at a Philadelphia residence built around 1870 where testing found lead-based paint in multiple locations.
- Plaintiffs could not identify the manufacturer of the lead pigment Skipworth ingested and could not determine when the pigment was made, sold, or applied to the home.
- Plaintiffs sued a trade association and numerous lead pigment manufacturers and successors, attempting to cover substantially all manufacturers supplying residential lead pigment from roughly 1870 until lead paint production for residential use ceased in 1977.
- Plaintiffs asserted collective liability theories, including market share liability, alternative liability, civil conspiracy, and concert of action.

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania should recognize market share liability for childhood lead-paint poisoning when the plaintiff cannot identify the specific manufacturer of the injurious product.
2. Whether alternative collective liability theories (alternative liability, civil conspiracy, and concert of action) can establish liability for multiple lead pigment manufacturers despite the absence of product identification and timing evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- The court refused to adopt market share liability in lead-paint poisoning cases.
- The court held that alternative liability was inapplicable because the case involved many potential defendants over a century-long period without proof that all were tortfeasors or that one of them necessarily caused the harm.
- The court held civil conspiracy and concert of action were not supported because the record did not establish the required agreement or coordinated conduct sufficient to substitute for proof of causation.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania products-liability and negligence claims generally require proof that a particular defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
- Market share liability is a major departure from traditional causation and, if recognized at all, is limited to settings closely matching its original rationale (including substantially identical products and a relatively confined exposure period).
- Market share liability is not appropriate for residential lead-paint cases spanning many decades because changing product formulations, shifting market participants, and fluctuating historical market shares make proportional liability speculative and risk liability without a meaningful causal link.
- Alternative liability requires a limited group of defendants shown to be tortfeasors where it is certain that one caused the harm; it does not fit a broad industry-wide suit lacking proof connecting any defendant’s product to the injury.
- Civil conspiracy and concert of action require evidence of agreement or coordinated action meeting doctrinal elements; generalized allegations of industry promotion or failure to warn, without more, do not replace the causation requirement.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, absent identification of the manufacturer and relevant timing evidence, a plaintiff alleging injury from lead-based paint cannot proceed under market share liability or other collective liability theories; the court therefore affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.


Skipworth v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc., 547 Pa. 224, 690 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1997)