The classic definition of public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with right common to the general public” Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 273 F.3d 536, 539 (3d Cir.2001).  However, the utilization of public nuisance  theories in non-traditional product liability and environmental litigation, if given sustenance by the courts, threatens to generate multi-billion dollar exposure for corporate defendants. Remarkably, in many public nuisance cases, the defendant’s conduct  was proper and the product lawfully marketed and sold. It is partly for this reason that public nuisance has been described by various legal scholars and commentators as a “wilderness of law”, “an impenetrable … Continue reading →