"Attempting to give this state the worst possible legal environment for business (see Loophole Louie [sic] Butler and lead paint) isn't anti-business?" — McIlheran BFF Steve PrestegardPrestegard's WMC propaganda is so tiresome. Here we go again:
It's also noteworthy that the two dissenters in Thomas v. Mallett, [so-called conservative] Justices Wilcox and Prosser, "recognize[d] the validity of the risk-contribution theory of recovery articulated by this court in Collins [v. Eli Lilly & Co.]." What they objected to was its extension and application to the facts in Mallett.01.06.11: WMC pet outrage tops list of "tort reforms"
Even the two [so-called conservative] dissenters — who were as forceful as could be — affirmed only that the pigment manufacturers "can be held liable for a product they may or may not have produced" and only then as one (potential) "result" of the majority's reasoning. Emphasis added. And in fact they weren't, because the action the Mallett court allowed the child to continue against those manufacturers was ultimately dismissed.
Oppose the doctrine, but there's no need to lie about it. On the other hand, if and when WMC launches its advertising campaign in support of Justice Prosser, some attentive reporter might ask WMC why it is endorsing such an enthusiastic proponent of risk contribution theory.01.27.11: WMC: Still dissembling after all these years
(No reporter did ask WMC that question, by the way.)