This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Brenner (P) sued D alleging that their child became ill after ingesting lead-based paint chips and inhaling dust from deterioration of lead-based paint applied to the walls of their residence. Ps had moved into an apartment in a house that was built in 1926 when the child was under 2. Shortly thereafter, the boy was diagnosed with severe lead poisoning as confirmed by blood tests and the presence of 'lead lines' on radiographs of the child's long bones. Richard sustained permanent injuries to his central nervous system that were proximately caused by his ingestion of the paint chips and dust containing white lead pigments, including dry white lead carbonate, dry white lead sulfate, and dry white lead in oil. Ds were named as the manufacturers or successors in interest to manufacturers of white lead carbonate during the period from 1926, the year the house in which plaintiffs resided was built, until 1955, the year lead-based paint was no longer sold for interior residential use. Ps alleged negligence and strict products liability. P was unable to identify the manufacturer of the white lead carbonate found in their residence. They claimed enterprise liability, market share liability, and alternative liability. Ds moved for summary judgment, and it was granted on some but not the market share liability. Ds' appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.