Answer:
Market share liability
Explanation:
To understand the doctrine of market share liability, it is important to first know the meaning of market share itself.
Market share refers to the percentage of the overall sales of a particular industry that is generated by a company. It calculated by dividing the total sales of the firm during a specified period by the aggregate sales of the industry during the same period. This gives an idea what the size of a company is compared with its competitors in the industry.
From the question, market share of BDC for that drug i Ohio is believed to be 40% when the mother of the plaintiff was taking it.
Market share liability is a legal doctrine unique to the law of the U.S. which gives an opportunity to a plaintiff who sustained an injury from a fungible product to establish a prima facie case against the product based on the market share of the manufacturers of that product, regardless of whether or not knows the actual producer of the product.
Therefore, the state of the plaintiff follows the doctrine of market share liability if he is able to collect $40,000 which from BDC out of the $100,000.
Note:
The $40,000 is obtained after applying 40% market share of BDC to the $100,000 total damages.
I wish you the best.
Answer:
How are the cases similar to each other? In other words, why would the earlier case be a precedent in the decision for the other?
What are the main arguments for each side in the Vernonia v. Acton case? What details does each side use to support their opinion?
Which side in the Vernonia v. Acton case had the stronger argument and why? (It's okay to choose either side. You will not be graded on your opinion, but rather on how well you support it with facts. Remember that even Supreme Court justices do not always agree!) pls keep it organized
Explanation:
Answer:
A
Explanation:
The answer is a because a human doesn't have unlimited stamina. Even the strongest man will get tired doing something too long.
Answer:
not mistaking it is correct
This is based on who is telling the truth. The defendant denys being in the city at the time of the murder, but then a local newspaper states that he heard gunshots from inside his apartment the day of the murder (which would be impossible if he wasn't in the city at the same of the murder). There could also be a chance that the newspaper could be lying mainly because the defendant objected that the evidence was correct. In this case, the judge should take this into consideration especially when a local newpaper article announced that the defendant heard gunshots after saying that he was never in the city. So I would say, the newspaper article could be evidence to prove that the defendant is responsible for the murder.
