Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Product Liability Law & StrategyLJN NewslettersNewsSections

Building a Fire Wall: Missouri and New Jersey Hold the Line Against Plaintiffs' Efforts to Expand the Law of Public Nuisance

By Eric G. Lasker
August 31, 2007

In its 2006 report on 'Judicial Hellholes',' the American Tort Reform Association ('ATRA') identified the plaintiff bar's aggressive use of public nuisance theories in product liability litigation as one of the key 'rising flames' that is threatening traditional judicial protections for defendants in the country's most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions. As ATRA explained, 'personal injury lawyers and some attorneys general have been trying to move public nuisance theory far beyond its traditional boundaries in order to avoid the well-defined strictures of products liability law.' American Tort Reform Association, Judicial Hellholes 2006, at 9. In so doing, they seek to tilt the playing field dramatically in their favor by writing out of the common law a plaintiff's obligation of establishing actual causation, proximate causation, and control.

Historically, most courts have been properly resistant to this misuse of the public nuisance doctrine. See generally, Victor E. Schwartz & Phil Goldberg, The Law of Public Nuisance: Maintaining Rational Boundaries on a Rational Tort, 45 Washburn L.J. 541 (2006). These courts have recognized that the purpose of the public nuisance doctrine is to abate conduct that gives rise to injury to public lands or waterways or to rights common to the public as a whole, not to compensate individuals or entities allegedly injured by exposures to an alleged injurious product.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.