Ohio Supreme Court Closes Door on Common-Law Public Nuisance Claims in Product Liability Cases

The Ohio Supreme Court handed down a decision that will restrict how product liability cases are handled in our state.

In a recent ruling (In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation), the Ohio Supreme Court closed the door on plaintiffs trying to use common-law public nuisance claims when suing companies for a product-related claim.  The Supreme Court has made it clear: when asserting a product liability claim in Ohio, you must do so under the Ohio Products Liability Act (OPLA).

The Opioid Case That Changed Everything

This case arose from the nationwide opioid crisis.  Two Ohio counties (Trumbull and Lake) sued major pharmacy chains including Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart.  The counties blamed these pharmacies for fueling the opioid epidemic by filling prescriptions without proper controls to stop illegitimate ones. Initially, the counties won big.  A federal jury found in their favor, and a judge awarded them $650 million in damages.  The Ohio Supreme Court has now reversed that decision.

Why This Matters

The Supreme Court’s decision boils down to this: the 2006 amendment to OPLA specifically brought public nuisance claims under its umbrella.  The statute states that a product liability claim “also includes any public nuisance claim,” and it means exactly that. The counties tried to bypass the OPLA’s requirements by framing their lawsuit as a common-law public nuisance claim.  The Supreme Court has now definitively rejected that approach in Ohio.

Key Takeaways for Future Cases

This ruling establishes several important points:

1. All product-related public nuisance claims must follow OPLA – There is no way around it.
2. No “defect” requirement – Unlike enumerated product liability claims, a public nuisance claim does not necessarily need to allege a specific product defect in order to fall under the OPLA.
3. Type of relief doesn’t matter – Whether you’re seeking money damages or other remedies, such as injunctions, the OPLA still applies.

The Bigger Impact

While the opioid crisis may have devastated communities across Ohio, the Court emphasized that creating judicial solutions “out of whole cloth” exceeds its authority.  The legislature has spoken clearly through the OPLA about how product liability cases must proceed in our state. For attorneys and potential plaintiffs, this means we need to carefully structure claims under OPLA’s framework, not try to work around it through common law theories. Other states may handle these cases differently under their own laws, but Ohio has now firmly established that our statutory scheme takes precedence over common law claims when it comes to product liability cases.