Enright v. Eli Lilly & Company

New York Court of Appeals · 1991 · Torts

77 N.Y.2d 377 (1991)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsProducts liabilityPreconception tortsDES litigationDESthird generation plaintiffpreconception tortstrict products liability

Facts

Karen Enright's maternal grandmother allegedly ingested DES during pregnancy, and Karen's mother, Patricia, was exposed to DES in utero. Plaintiffs alleged that Patricia's in utero DES exposure damaged her reproductive system, causing spontaneous abortions and ultimately Karen's premature birth. Karen allegedly suffered cerebral palsy and other disabilities caused by that premature birth. The claim before the court was Karen's strict products liability claim as a so-called third generation plaintiff against DES manufacturers.

Issue

Whether DES manufacturers may be held strictly liable to a third generation plaintiff whose injuries were allegedly caused by premature birth resulting from damage to her mother's reproductive system caused by the mother's in utero exposure to DES. More broadly, the question was whether strict products liability should support a preconception tort claim that New York had rejected in negligence in Albala.

Rule

An injury to a mother that later results in injuries to a child conceived afterward does not create a cause of action in favor of that later-conceived child against the original tortfeasor. This limitation applies even in a strict products liability action against DES manufacturers; liability is confined to those who ingested the drug or were exposed to it in utero.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Dana Mercer was exposed in utero to a fertility medication that allegedly damaged her uterus. Twenty-five years later, after Dana conceived her son, the pregnancy ended in an extremely premature birth, and the child, Owen, suffered lasting neurological injuries allegedly caused by the prematurity. Owen sues the drug manufacturers for strict products liability based on inadequate warnings.

Under the governing rule, is Owen's strict products liability claim likely cognizable?

Explanation. The majority held that no cause of action accrues in favor of a later-conceived child whose injuries derive from harm done to the mother's reproductive system before the child's conception. That limitation applies even when the claim is framed as strict products liability against a drug manufacturer. The court treated this as the same policy problem addressed in Albala: liability would extend beyond manageable bounds unless confined.