How have courts considered market share liability in a product liability action?

In this appeal we are asked to apply the market share theory of liability of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980) 26 Cal.3d 588, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 607 P.2d 924 (Sindell ), or the alternative theory of liability of Summers v. Tice (1948) 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (Summers ) to wholesalers of defective residential drain pipe where the manufacturers are known, but where the plaintiffs in this product liability action for property damage allegedly cannot determine which wholesaler distributed

Page 261

This appeal is taken from a judgment of dismissal after demurrers to appellants' third amended complaints were sustained without leave to amend. The established standard of appellate review requires us to accept all material facts properly pleaded as true and accept those subject to judicial notice, and we report them accordingly. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58)