2024 Ohio 5744
Ohio2024Background
- This case arose from lawsuits brought by Trumbull and Lake Counties, Ohio, against national pharmacy chains (Walgreens, CVS, Walmart) as part of the multidistrict National Prescription Opiate Litigation.
- Plaintiffs alleged the pharmacies contributed to the opioid epidemic by inadequately controlling the distribution of prescription opioids, leading to widespread addiction.
- The counties asserted their claims as common-law absolute public nuisance actions, seeking equitable abatement (not compensatory damages).
- The pharmacies moved to dismiss, arguing that the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) abrogated all public-nuisance claims related to product sales.
- The federal district court denied dismissal (and later post-trial motions), finding OPLA did not cover public-nuisance claims seeking only equitable relief; the case was appealed, and the Sixth Circuit certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether OPLA, as amended, abrogates all public-nuisance claims related to the sale of products, including those seeking equitable abatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does OPLA abrogate common-law public-nuisance claims based on the sale of a product? | OPLA only abrogates claims for compensatory damages, not equitable relief or public-nuisance claims. | OPLA’s expanded definition after 2007 abrogates all public-nuisance claims, regardless of relief sought. | Yes, all such claims, including for equitable relief, are abrogated by OPLA. |
| Does the statutory definition of "product liability claim" include public-nuisance claims seeking only equitable remedies? | No, because "product liability claim" in OPLA means only claims for compensatory damages. | Yes, because the "also includes" language creates a separate, additive category covering any relief type. | Yes, the relief sought is immaterial; all product-related public-nuisance claims are abrogated. |
| Must a public-nuisance claim under OPLA involve a product defect? | Yes, only claims involving product defects are covered by OPLA. | No, OPLA’s language does not require a product defect for public-nuisance claims. | No, there is no such requirement; all public-nuisance claims based on sale/distribution are included. |
| Does dispensing opioids fall under "sale" or "distribution" in OPLA’s terms? | No, dispensing is different from sale or distribution. | Yes, dispensing is functionally equivalent to sale/distribution in this context. | Yes, dispensing is covered by OPLA as a sale/distribution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 768 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 2002) (addressing public-nuisance liability for product manufacturers)
- Carrel v. Allied Products Corp., 699 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio 1997) (addressing survival of common-law claims after OPLA enactment)
- LaPuma v. Collinwood Concrete, 678 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio 1997) (claims seeking only economic damages are excluded from OPLA)
- State ex rel. R.T.G., Inc. v. State, 780 N.E.2d 998 (Ohio 2002) (public nuisance defined)