Business groups back House Bill 126 to bar product-based public nuisance suits; sponsors say it codifies Ohio Supreme Court ruling
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Proponents including the Ohio Chamber and the American Tort Reform Association told the committee House Bill 126 would prevent public nuisance lawsuits based on products and codify a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision about the Product Liability Act; testimony framed the bill as clarifying, not creating, law.
Representatives of business groups told the Senate Judiciary Committee they support House Bill 126, which would bar public nuisance claims that allege a product unreasonably interferes with a right common to the public, and they said the bill simply codifies an Ohio Supreme Court interpretation of the Product Liability Act.
Kevin Shimp, testifying for the Ohio Chamber, said the bill would stop product-liability-style claims repackaged as public-nuisance suits and restore predictability for businesses. Shimp described legislative history dating to 2005 and 2007 amendments to Ohios product-liability statutes and cited the state Supreme Courts resolution of a high-profile opioid-related litigation question as the rationale for codification.
Kerry Silverman of the American Tort Reform Association echoed that characterizations of modern product-based public nuisance litigation as a misuse of a land-use tort; she described the bill as returning public nuisance to its traditional role addressing land-use conditions. Both witnesses said House Bill 126 does not create new law but reaffirms the product-liability statutes as the appropriate vehicle for product-based claims. The committee received proponent testimony and noted additional written endorsements from other business groups.