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
TEA [102]
2 years ago
5

Question 19 of 20

Law
1 answer:
Nookie1986 [14]2 years ago
3 0
It would be D I did the work on this pls thank and put braliest on this pls and thank you
You might be interested in
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
Can you help me?
Crank
What is your question
6 0
3 years ago
David Donor called NPR during a fund drive and pledged to donate $50,000. Counting on this big donation, NPR planned and began t
leonid [27]

Answer:

No, because that's david's money so he can do anything he wants with it, PBS just wants that money & trying to find a way to get it which is trying to sue David.  So no, PBS will not win the lawsuit, David will win the lawsuit.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Why is malice difficult to prove? i need this ASAP
vova2212 [387]

Answer:

Although defined within the context of a media defendant, the rule requiring proof of actual malice applies to all defendants including individuals. The standard can make it very difficult to prevail in a defamation case, even when allegations made against a public figure are unfair or are proved to be false.

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
If health claims are included on a food label, a _______________________ must<br> be included.
vladimir1956 [14]

Answer:

Companies must support their advertising claims with solid proof. This is especially true for businesses that market food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, contact lenses, and other health-related products. All companies – including marketers of dietary supplements – must comply with truth-in-advertising standards.

Explanation: I really hope this helps because I love anime runa and kakeguri love your fellow weeb :)

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Handout 1B: My Day in Court, But Which One?
    9·1 answer
  • What is likely to result from the event referred to in the headline? A. The representative will realize that campaign finance re
    12·2 answers
  • Are cops the good guys?
    13·1 answer
  • Is there a grandfather clause for the new tobacco law
    14·2 answers
  • The senate refusing to ratify a treaty, the president vetoing a law, and the senate rejecting the nomination of a supreme court
    14·1 answer
  • 1. Where is the line drawn between religion and public schools?
    13·1 answer
  • Which philosopher’s work was the basis for the classical theory of criminology? A. Thomas Hobbes B. Peter Annet C. William Blake
    9·1 answer
  • The agreement providing security in real property is a(n): __________
    7·1 answer
  • 11. How are the roles and responsibilities interconnected among 3 branches of government?
    6·1 answer
  • Which model emphasizes public order and swift, efficient, and effective justice?
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!