Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesliabilitytrialverdictmotionproduct liabilitycompensatory damagescommon lawjury trialequitable relief
plaintiffliabilitystatuteproduct liabilitycommon law

Related Cases

Dravo Corporation v. L.W. Moses Company, 6 Wash.App. 74, 492 P.2d 1058
View Case »
Payne v. Jones, 711 F.3d 85
View Case »
Evans v. Williams, 291 Ky. 484, 165 S.W.2d 52
View Case »
Eastlake Const. Co., Inc. v. Hess, 33 Wash.App. 378, 655 P.2d 1160
View Case »
Magnet Resources, Inc. v. Summit MRI, Inc., 318 N.J.Super. 275, 723 A.2d 976
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, — N.E.3d —-, 2024 WL 5049302, 2024-Ohio-5744

Facts

The counties of Trumbull and Lake alleged that national pharmacy chains, including Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart, created and maintained the opioid epidemic by filling prescriptions without proper controls. They filed a common-law absolute public-nuisance claim, seeking equitable relief rather than compensatory damages. The pharmacies moved to dismiss the claims based on the OPLA, which they argued abrogated such public nuisance claims. The federal district court denied the motion, leading to a jury trial that resulted in a verdict for the counties.

A group of city and county governments from across the nation, Indian tribes, and other entities have brought actions alleging 'that opioid manufacturers, opioid distributors, and opioid-selling pharmacies and retailers acted in concert to mislead medical professionals into prescribing, and millions of Americans into taking and often becoming addicted to, opiates.'

Issue

Whether the Ohio Product Liability Act, as amended, abrogates a common law claim of absolute public nuisance resulting from the sale of a product when the plaintiffs seek equitable relief.

Whether the Ohio Product Liability Act, Ohio Revised Code § 2307.71 et seq., as amended in 2005 and 2007, abrogates a common law claim of absolute public nuisance resulting from the sale of a product in commerce in which the plaintiffs seek equitable abatement, including both monetary and injunctive remedies?

Rule

The Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) abrogates all common-law product liability claims, including public nuisance claims, regardless of whether the claims seek compensatory damages.

The OPLA is 'intended to abrogate all common law product liability causes of action.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the OPLA, particularly the amendments made in 2005 and 2007, which included public nuisance claims within the definition of product liability claims. It concluded that the phrase 'also includes' indicated an expansion of the definition, thereby abrogating all public nuisance claims related to product sales. The court emphasized that the OPLA's intent was to eliminate common-law claims that could be disguised as product liability claims, including those seeking equitable relief.

The Pharmacies have the better argument. Narrowly construing 'also includes any public nuisance claim' to mean only those public-nuisance claims that satisfy the first paragraph of (A)(13) reads 'also' out of the statute.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed that all public nuisance claims alleging that the sale of a product unreasonably interferes with a right common to the general public have been abrogated by the OPLA, including those seeking equitable relief.

We hold, therefore, that a public-nuisance claim need not involve allegations of a product defect to satisfy the definition of 'product liability claim.'

Who won?

The pharmacies prevailed in the case as the court held that the OPLA abrogated the counties' public nuisance claims, which were based on the sale of opioids.

The Pharmacies argued that the OPLA abrogates public-nuisance claims like those brought by the Counties, arguing in part that certain public-nuisance claims are included in the OPLA's definition of product-liability claims.

You must be