In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation
179 Ohio St.3d 74, 2024 Ohio 5744 (2024)
Rule of Law:
The Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA), R.C. 2307.71 et seq., abrogates all common-law public-nuisance claims arising from the sale, distribution, or marketing of a product, regardless of whether such claims seek compensatory damages or equitable relief, and without requiring allegations of a product defect.
Facts:
- A group of city and county governments, Indian tribes, and other entities initiated actions alleging that opioid manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, and retailers conspired to mislead medical professionals into prescribing, and millions of Americans into taking and becoming addicted to, opiates.
- Trumbull County and Lake County (the "Counties") alleged that national pharmaceutical chains, specifically Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart (the "Pharmacies"), created and maintained the opioid epidemic by filling opioid prescriptions without sufficient controls to prevent the distribution of illicitly prescribed drugs.
- The Counties pleaded their allegations as a common-law absolute public-nuisance claim, seeking equitable relief (such as funds for abatement of the nuisance) rather than compensatory damages.
- The Pharmacies' actions, described by the Counties as "dispensing" opioids, involve preparing and distributing the product in exchange for a price.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of city and county governments, Indian tribes, and other entities filed numerous actions (multidistrict litigation, National Prescription Opiate Litigation) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against opioid manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, and retailers.
- Trumbull County and Lake County (the "Counties") brought one of these actions against Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart (the "Pharmacies"), alleging a common-law absolute public-nuisance claim.
- The Pharmacies filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) abrogated such public-nuisance claims.
- The federal district court denied the Pharmacies' motion to dismiss, relying on its prior decision in the Summit County Action, which concluded that the OPLA did not abrogate absolute-public-nuisance claims seeking equitable remedies.
- After the case proceeded to trial, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Counties.
- The Pharmacies filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, reiterating their OPLA-abrogation argument, which the federal district court denied.
- The Pharmacies appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Recognizing that the Supreme Court of Ohio had not yet interpreted the OPLA in light of its 2005 and 2007 amendments regarding public-nuisance claims, the Sixth Circuit certified a question of state law to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA), Ohio Revised Code § 2307.71 et seq., as amended in 2005 and 2007, abrogate 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?
Opinions:
Majority - Deters, J.
Yes, the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA), as amended, abrogates common-law claims of absolute public nuisance resulting from the sale of a product, even when plaintiffs seek equitable abatement. The Court interpreted the phrase "also includes" in R.C. 2307.71(A)(13), added by the 2007 Amendment, as an additive and expansive definition, rather than merely illustrative. This established a second, independent category of product-liability claims—those based on public nuisance related to products—that are abrogated by the OPLA. Crucially, this second category does not require claims to seek compensatory damages or involve allegations of a product defect, unlike the first paragraph of the definition. The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to the plain language of the statute, rendering legislative history irrelevant in the absence of ambiguity. Furthermore, the Court found that "dispensing" a product is functionally equivalent to "selling" or "distributing" it, thereby falling within the OPLA's scope.
Concurring in judgment only - Fischer, J.
Justice Fischer concurred only in the judgment, meaning they agreed with the outcome but not necessarily with the reasoning of the majority opinion.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Stewart, J.
No, the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) does not abrogate public-nuisance claims that seek equitable relief. Justice Stewart argued that the plain language of the OPLA defines a "product liability claim" as one that "seeks to recover compensatory damages." Since Trumbull County and Lake County (the "Counties") sought and received only equitable relief, specifically funds for the abatement of the opioid nuisance (e.g., treatment facilities, harm-reduction strategies), their claims do not meet this explicit statutory definition. Therefore, these claims are not "product liability claims" under the OPLA and should not be abrogated. Justice Stewart contended that even substantial equitable abatement awards do not transform into compensatory damages. Donnelly, J. joined this opinion.
Analysis:
This ruling significantly limits the avenues for plaintiffs, particularly governmental entities, to seek redress for widespread public harms caused by products under Ohio law. By broadly interpreting the OPLA to abrogate all common-law product-based public nuisance claims, regardless of the relief sought (equitable vs. compensatory) or the presence of a product defect, the Ohio Supreme Court has channeled these disputes into the statutory framework. This decision reinforces the legislature's authority in defining tort liability and may compel future plaintiffs to frame their claims strictly within the OPLA's specific provisions or advocate for legislative amendments to address public health crises more comprehensively.
