Abstract
The opioid epidemic has ravaged the country, killing close to one hundred Americans daily and costing our nation upwards of $90 billion a year. All branches and levels of the government have pursued measures to combat the epidemic and reduce the societal costs of the crisis. Perhaps the most interesting response is the emergence of direct injury government entity lawsuits, which seek to recover damages from opioid companies that facilitated prescription pill addictions. Cities, counties, and states across the country are suing opioid manufacturers and distributors in unprecedented numbers.
This Note explores the role of direct injury government entity claims, as compared to other forms of civil litigation, as employed in the opioid crisis. It highlights the obstacles faced by parens patriae actions, individual lawsuits, class actions, and aggregate actions in general. This Note argues that direct injury government claims have important advantages over other forms of civil litigation because they overcome certain defenses related to victim blameworthiness and because they function as an inherent representative action that bypasses the certification requirements of traditional aggregate actions.
Aliferov, Edgar, The Role of Direct Injury Government Entity Lawsuits in the Opioid Litigation (February 21, 2018). Fordham Law Review, forthcoming.
First posted 2018-03-03 06:51:57
Leave a Reply