Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 AUGUST 2006

Public Nuisance Liability "Monster" Threatens to "Devour" Lead Paint Makers

For almost two decades, paint manufacturers have successfully defended lawsuits alleging that lead-based paint had contaminated homes, supposedly injuring countless home owners and their children. Over the past six months, however, decisions in cases run on novel legal theories may signal a paradigm shift in this litigation.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Philip Pfeffer
Philip Pfeffer
David Wallace
David Wallace

See

State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Ass’n, C.A. 99-5226, (R.I. Super. Ct., Feb. 22, 2006); County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313 (6th Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

For almost two decades, paint manufacturers have successfully defended lawsuits alleging that lead-based paint had contaminated homes, supposedly injuring countless home owners and their children. Over the past six months, however, decisions in cases run on novel legal theories may signal a paradigm shift in this litigation.

Rhode Island

Verdict

In February, following an earlier hung jury, the State of Rhode Island scored a significant victory against lead-based paint makers, with a jury of six deciding that defendant manufacturers (and their trade association) were liable on a public nuisance theory for Rhode Island’s lead paint problems -- putting defendants at risk for the cost of abating the problem in more than 240,000 homes, at an estimated cost of more than $1 billion.1

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from