1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
IrinaVladis [17]
3 years ago
14

PLEASE HELP WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST AND THANKS

Law
1 answer:
Rudiy273 years ago
8 0
Hey I don’t personally know the answer but there are calculators online that can!
You might be interested in
How do i commit illegal
Degger [83]

Answer:

what are you talking about

7 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How old is nick cannon and mariah carey
olga55 [171]
Nick Cannon is 40 years old and Mariah is 50
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!! 100 POINTS!!! For this project, you have the opportunity to be the author and write brief newspaper arti
LUCKY_DIMON [66]

Answer:

Manufacturers are used to defending strict product liability actions when plaintiffs claim that their products are defective. But in the opioid litigation, plaintiffs have filed something else: more than 2,500 public nuisance cases so far.

Governmental entities across the country are filing suits alleging that opioid manufacturers deceptively marketed their legal, opioid-based pain medications to understate the medication’s addictive qualities and to overstate its effectiveness in treating pain. In addition, plaintiffs allege that opioid distributors failed to properly monitor how frequently the medication was prescribed and failed to stop filling prescription orders from known “pill mills.” The complaints claim that manufacturer defendants’ deceptive marketing schemes and distributor defendants’ failure to monitor led more people to become addicted to painkillers, which led to people turning to illegal opioids. The legal argument here is that the defendants’ actions in concert interfered with an alleged public right against unwarranted illness and addition. But is public nuisance law likely to be a successful avenue for prosecuting these types of mass tort claims? It has not been in the past.

This is the first of two posts that will address how plaintiffs have historically used public nuisance law to prosecute mass tort claims and how the plaintiffs in the current opioid litigation may fare.

Overview of Public Nuisance Law

In most states, a public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”[1] This definition is often broken down into four elements: (1) the defendant’s affirmative conduct caused (2) an unreasonable interference (3) with a right common to the general public (4) that is abatable.

Courts have interpreted these elements in different ways. For example, courts in Rhode Island and California have disagreed about when a public nuisance is abatable: the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that this element is satisfied only if the defendant had control over what caused the nuisance when the injury occurred, while the a California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff need not prove this element at all.[2] And while the federal district court in Ohio handling the opioid multidistrict litigation (MDL) has held that the right to be free from unwarranted addiction is a public right,[3] the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the right to be “free from unreasonable jeopardy to health” is a private right and cannot be the basis of a public nuisance claim.[4]

Roots of Public Nuisance Law in Mass Tort Cases

Plaintiffs litigating mass tort cases have turned to public nuisance law over the past decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to use it to hold asbestos manufacturers liable.[5] In one case, plaintiffs alleged that defendants created a nuisance by producing an asbestos-laced product that caused major health repercussions for a portion of the population. Plaintiffs argued that North Dakota nuisance law did not require defendants to have the asbestos-laced products within their control when the injury to the consumer occurred. Explicitly rejecting this theory, the Eighth Circuit held that North Dakota nuisance law required the defendant to have control over the product and found that defendant in the case before it did not have control over the asbestos-laced products because when the injury occurred, the products had already been distributed to consumers. The Eighth Circuit warned that broadening nuisance law to encompass these claims “would in effect totally rewrite” tort law, morphing nuisance law into “a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.”[6]

3 0
2 years ago
Under the constitution, all bills for the national taxes and give spending must begin with the
evablogger [386]
B. House of Representatives(Members Of parliament representing various districts in the country)
5 0
2 years ago
Child Abuse is going on in Youth Football, Police said they will take charge, period
Stella [2.4K]
Yes. they will take charge because they are police and that is a crime. Please mark brainliest
3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd<br>ddddddddddd
    5·2 answers
  • Grounds on which the registrar of a partnership business may lawfully refuse to register a partnership
    15·1 answer
  • We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more
    11·1 answer
  • it is a snowy, icy day. Eric is walking home from school when he spots some friends walking the next block over. Eric begins to
    13·1 answer
  • The police-community relations movement (PCR) developed out of the:
    10·2 answers
  • Which of the following pieces of evidence might a digital forensics expert analyze?
    9·1 answer
  • "Vulnerable road user” is a term used to identify those road users who ...
    6·2 answers
  • which 1972 supreme court case determined that the death penalty was unconstitutional for violating the 8th amendment?
    10·1 answer
  • Which is NOT been a reason for the increased need of forensic science evidence?
    8·1 answer
  • Specify the key requirements for police officers in determining the lawfulness of the use of force in making an arrest and what
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!