Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

In re Coordinated Latex Glove Litigation

California Court of Appeal
121 Cal. Rptr.2d 301 (2002)


Christine McGinnis (plaintiff) filed a products liability suit against Baxter Healthcare Corporation (Baxter) (defendant) alleging that the latex gloves the company manufactured were defective in that they contained substances that caused her to develop serious allergies and forced her to leave her job as a nurse and undergo medical treatment for allergic reactions. McGinnis’ case was the first to go to trial in a group of cases in coordinated proceedings involving allegations against various defendant companies that manufactured or distributed latex gloves. At trial, McGinnis argued that the particular latex gloves containing the allergic substances, including latex proteins, caused a serious and potentially life-threatening allergy to all forms of natural rubber latex (NRL) to develop even though the individual did not have the condition prior to using the gloves. This was due, in part, to Baxter’s failure to timely implement washing or chlorinating procedures that would have greatly reduced or eliminated the allergic substances. In response, Baxter claimed that the company constantly tinkered with the procedures to get the best protein system in place that would not result in defects in barrier protection in the gloves such as pinholes or tearing. Additionally, Baxter argued that McGinnis’ claim that it was required to employ the washing procedures was not mandated by federal law. The jury found Baxter liable on the manufacturing defect claim and awarded McGinnis compensatory damages of nearly $900,000. The jury also found that Baxter had been negligent, but that there was no evidence of proximate cause and completely rejected McGinnis’ failure to warn claim. The trial court granted Baxter’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the manufacturing defect finding. McGinnis appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Huffman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 499,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 499,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial