What was the reason for the court allowing the farm employee's lawsuit against the pesticide companies?

The court allowed the farm employee's lawsuit against the pesticide companies primarily because market-share liability was reasonably anticipated. This legal theory holds manufacturers liable for damages caused by their products, even if the specific product responsible for the harm cannot be identified, provided that the companies share a substantial portion of the market for that product. In the context of pesticide exposure, if multiple companies produced similar or identical products, the court could reasonably expect to impose liability based on their collective market presence and the potential harm caused to individuals. This approach is particularly relevant in cases where the individual harmed does not have the specifics of which product or company was responsible, yet seeks justice for the damages incurred.

In this case, the existence of a well-established principle of market-share liability provided a legal foundation for the claim, reducing the burden on the employee to identify the specific pesticide involved. The other options do not align with the legal reasoning typically applied in such cases, highlighting why market-share liability is the suitable explanation for the court's decision.