You are here: / / Where Plaintiff Does Not Know Which of Two Defendants Distributed the Product...

Where Plaintiff Does Not Know Which of Two Defendants Distributed the Product Which Caused the Injury, the Doctrine of Alternative Liability Applies—Doctrine Explained

The Second Department determined the doctrine of alternative liability applied to a strict products liability case where it was not possible for the plaintiff to determine which of two defendants distributed the product. The doctrine places the burden on the defendants to demonstrate which of them distributed the product, and if that is not possible, the two defendants would be jointly and severally liable:

Generally, a plaintiff seeking to recover for injuries sustained due to the use of a product is required to prove that it was the defendant who placed the product that injured him or her into the stream of commerce … . However, the doctrine of alternative liability is “available in some personal injury cases to permit recovery where the precise identification of a wrongdoer is impossible” … .

Under that doctrine, where the conduct of two or more defendants is tortious, and ” it is proved that harm has been caused to the plaintiff by only one of them, but there is uncertainty as to which one,'” the burden is placed on those defendants to prove that they did not cause the harm … . If the defendants cannot meet that burden, they are jointly and severally liable … . “Recovery under an alternative liability theory requires joinder of all the parties who could have been responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries” … . Silver v Sportsstuff, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06232, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER WAS NEGLIGENT; THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT’S OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY DID NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER HAD COMPLETED THE PERIOD OF INCARCERATION IMPOSED IN THIS SUPPORT ARREARS PROCEEDING, THE COMMITMENT ORDER IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA ATTACHED TO VIOLATING SUPPORT ALLEGATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE JUDICIAL BIAS ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE SECOND DEPT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE STATE, NOT THE TOWN, OWNS THE LAND BENEATH THE LAKE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS; THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND AND PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS TERMINATED IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
RESPONDENT IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT, NOT STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST), SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DWI AND THE JUDGE REVOKED HIS DRIVERS LICENSE FOR ONE YEAR; THE DMV SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO REINSTATE HIS LICENSE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS LICENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Service Requirements of Education Law 3813(1) Do Not Apply to Disputes Involving the Public Interest As Opposed to Private Rights/Criteria for Granting an Extension (Nunc Pro Tunc) to Effect Service Pursuant to CPLR 306-b Explained
HERE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S VOICE WAS MUCH LESS DEFINITIVE AND UNEQUIVOCAL THAN THE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, RAISING A QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO REOPEN THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A REOPENED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
COURT’S LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATION AWARD SUCCINCTLY STATED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Broker Entitled to a Commission Despite Purchaser’s Wish Not to Work with... Failure to Timely Submit a Proposed Judgment of Divorce Did Not Constitute Abandonment...