The state’s public nuisance action against companies that long ago sold lead paint for interior use, the only such lawsuit filed by a state government, ended in a mistrial three years ago: see Oct. 30-31, 2002. Now it’s come to retrial in a Providence courtroom, with huge potential stakes. (Eric Tucker, “Landmark lawsuit against lead paint industry to return to court”, AP/Boston Globe, Oct. 16; “New lead paint trial set in Rhode Island”, UPI/Science Daily, Oct. 17.) Speechwriter/blogger Jane Genova is blogging it live from the scene, with first posts here and here. DuPont paid this summer to be let out of the case: see Jul. 2. On the politics behind the suit, see Jun. 7 and Jun. 8-10, 2001.
Posts Tagged ‘lead paint’
Wisc. high court opens paint-suit floodgates
After getting thrown out of court pretty much everywhere else, trial lawyers suing companies that long ago manufactured lead paints and pigments may have finally achieved their long-sought breakthrough. They are indebted for this benefaction to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, within days of the same court’s baldly activist decision (PoL Jul. 14) to strike down the state legislature’s limits on medical malpractice awards. By a 4-2 margin, the court agreed to apply the theory of market-share liability — widely rejected by courts except in the context of suits over the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) — to hold liable any and all companies which made paints and pigments sold in Wisconsin, regardless of whether a plaintiff claiming injury can demonstrate whose product he or she was exposed to. The court did not apply any statute of limitations and impatiently brushed aside defendants’ objections that the conduct being sued over took place more than a century ago — the houses in which the teenage plaintiff had been exposed to lead paint were built in 1900 and 1905 — and was lawful according to the standards of that time. “It will be nearly impossible for paint companies to defend themselves or, frankly, for plaintiffs to lose” under the newly announced standard, predicts dissenting justice David Prosser. If he’s right, expect a gold rush by client-chasing lawyers in Wisconsin. (J.R. Ross, “Court Allows Teen to Sue Lead Paint Pigment Makers for Injuries”, AP/Law.com, Jul. 18). For more on paint litigation, see this set of links, Dec. 15, 2003, Jul. 2, 2005, etc.
Update: duPont, R.I. settle paint case
Although the giant chemical company refuses to characterize it as a settlement, duPont has agreed to donate $10 million or more toward education, research, and the cost of lead remediation for 600 homes in exchange for being dropped from Rhode Island’s action. Other defendants that remain in the case are Sherwin Williams Co., NL Industries Inc., Atlantic Richfield Co., Millennium Holdings LLC, American Cyanamid Co. and ConAgra Inc. A lawsuit filed by the state’s former attorney general against the manufacturers ended in a hung jury in Providence in 2002; a new trial is set for September. The product has not been sold for interior use in this country in approximately a half century. (“DuPont settles for millions in Rhode Island suit on lead paint”, AP/USA Today, Jun. 30). For our coverage of the case and the controversy generally, see this set of links. Courts have dismissed a number of other lawsuits seeking to impose financial responsibility for lead-paint-related woes on paint and pigment makers, including suits filed by the cities of Chicago (see Oct. 13, 2003) and Milwaukee (see Aug. 3, 2003). Update: Point of Law, Sept. 13, 2006 (controversy over donations).
The Rule of Lawyers: the softcover edition
If you enjoy this website, and especially if you want to learn more about the “big” lawsuit campaigns that generate fortunes for lawyers and tag industries with billions in liability, you would probably enjoy my book The Rule of Lawyers, which got a fair bit of attention when it was published last year. Now St. Martin’s, the publisher, has come out with a new softcover edition, just now posted on Amazon at an attractively priced $10.47. It includes a newly written epilogue in which I discuss major developments of the last year such as the fast-food litigation, the enactment of comprehensive tort reform in Texas, and the surprise move by the ABA to support reform of asbestos and class-action litigation, as well as the latest twists in gun, tobacco, fen-phen and lead paint courtroom battles, among others.
The hardcover edition of The Rule of Lawyers continues to be available here and seems to be a popular gift for Father’s Day and for new graduates, law school or otherwise. The Manhattan Institute maintains a site that compiles publicity about the book, related op-eds, etc. As for the spanking new softcover, the publisher tells me that the first copies will be in hand today, and that it will ship later this month. Its back cover is graced with an excerpt from Robert Lenzner’s rave review of the book for Forbes.com, in which he calls it: “A truly gripping read about tort lawyers … a brilliant expose of the way courts are being overwhelmed by mass tort actions.” (& thanks to David Giacalone for (end of item) his kind words).
NYC lead paint bill
A bill now poised for passage in New York’s city council would make it easier to file lawsuits against landlords claiming tort damages for lead exposure in children. The Bloomberg administration has declined to endorse the bill, saying it could generate “huge” liability costs. However, the bill (which has been avidly sought by the litigation lobby) is likely to be passed by the Council today anyway and has more sponsors than are necessary to override a mayoral veto (“Mike brushes off paint bill”, New York Daily News, Dec. 6; Winnie Hu, “City Council Moves Forward With Lead-Paint Legislation”, New York Times, Dec. 13). “The Council’s liability standards will make it very hard for even the most responsible owners to defend themselves,” says Michael Lappin, president of the Community Preservation Corp., which finances housing rehabilitation in older neighborhoods, “and high liability will choke off insurance.” (Julia Vitullo-Martin (Manhattan Institute), “Council is lead-painting city into a corner”, Dec. 10; “Doing the Giffie Shuffle” (critical editorial), New York Post, Nov. 21; “A Lead-Paint Law We Can Live With” (supportive editorial), New York Times, Nov. 29 (fee-based archive)).
Of city children diagnosed with high levels of lead in their blood, a substantial share have ingested the element through other routes (in fact, a substantial share do not live in apartments with lead paint at all). The bill, however, contains a “presumption” clause aimed at making it hard for property owners to dispute hazard findings. Among other clues to the bill’s redistributive objectives: it “makes owners liable even if they are unaware that a child is living in an apartment. Why not require (as did the prior law) parents to inform property owners that they have young children living with them?” (Joseph Strasburg (Rent Stabilization Association, property owners), “Lead Paint Legal Scam”, New York Post, Nov. 24). See Oct. 13; Apr. 24 and Nov. 30, 2000. Update: Council passes bill by 44-5 margin (N.Y. Times, Dec. 16). Further update Feb. 13: Mayor’s veto overridden; Jun. 2: housing market thrown into turmoil.
Chicago lead paint case dismissed
“A judge has dismissed the City of Chicago’s lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from lead-based paint manufacturers, saying the city had not proven that the companies created a public nuisance.” (“Chicago’s lawsuit over lead paint dismissed”, AP/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Oct. 8). The New York Times recently noticed one complication affecting the diagnosis of an “epidemic” of lead poisoning among inner-city children, namely that a large share of urban kids found to have high lead-blood levels are immigrants from countries where lead exposures are very high (Kirk Johnson, “For a Changing City, New Pieces in a Lead-Poisoning Puzzle”, New York Times, Sept. 30 (fee archives); Steven Malanga, “The Lead Paint Scam”, New York Post, Jun. 24, 2002, reprinted at Manhattan Institute site (same point); our entry for Oct. 28-29, 2002).
Update: Judge throws out Milwaukee lead paint case
In the latest high-profile lead paint suit to go down to defeat, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Timothy G. Dugan dismissed the city of Milwaukee’s lawsuit demanding $85 million from NL Industries, maker of Dutch Boy paint, and Mautz Paint Co. Although Milwaukee’s contingency fee agreement with private lawyers was widely billed as one in which city taxpayers faced no risk, it turns out that the city will owe the private lawyers a substantial sum for expenses if it chooses to abandon the case rather than pursue appeal. (Tom Held, “Judge dismisses lawsuit against lead paint companies”, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jul. 30; AP/Madison Capital Times, Jul. 30). The lawsuit had already contributed to the demise of the family-owned Mautz Paint Co., which sold itself to Sherwin-Williams in part because it could not afford to shoulder a legal defense (see Nov. 13, 2001). “The African American Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce praised the court’s action in prepared statements. ‘This lawsuit has hurt efforts to clean up lead paint problems,’ a statement from the African American Chamber said.” (“City’s lead paint suit dismissed”, Milwaukee Business Journal, Jul. 28).
Motley’s Sept. 11 crusade
Profile of bigshot tort lawyer Ron (“U.S. foreign policy, c’est moi”) Motley, who after ultra-successful runs in asbestos and tobacco and a far less successful run against lead paint manufacturers has embarked on a crusade to sue various rich Saudi Arabians over Sept. 11 because they allegedly had paid off bin Laden over the years, whether from sympathy, fear or other motives. The State Department has repeatedly complained that the suit (with its demands for compulsory discovery of foreign nationals, etc.) threatens to upset the delicate management of U.S.-Saudi relations, but who (aside from the U.S. Constitution) says the executive branch should get to run foreign relations anyway? Quotes our editor (Tony Bartelme, “The King of Torts vs. al-Quaida [sic] Inc., Charleston Post & Courier, Jun. 22). Newsiest nugget to us: according to the article, Motley has hired full time to work on the case a well-connected Washington lawyer named Harry Huge; this is pretty rich once you consider something not spelled out in the article, which is that Huge served on most if not all of the arbitration panels that awarded the Ness Motley firm vast fortunes in the state tobacco litigation. What could be more ingenuous and conflict-of-interest-free than for Motley to turn around and give him a job?
Archived lead paint items, pre-June 2003
Archived entries before July 2003 can also be found here.
2003: “Stuart Taylor, Jr. on lead paint litigation“, Mar. 5-7.
2002: “R.I. lead paint case goes to jury“, Oct. 28-29 (& Oct. 30-31: mistrial).
2001: “From the paint wars: a business’s demise, a school district’s hypocrisy“, Nov. 13; “Forbes on lead paint suits, cont’d“, Jun. 8-10; “Ness monster sighted in Narragansett Bay” (Rhode Island, Ness Motley), Jun. 7 (& see Dec. 27-28, 1999 re R.I.); “Reparations: take a number“, Apr. 17 (& see Olson, Reason, Nov. 2000); “‘Painting the town — with lawsuits’“, Mar. 7-8; “‘Bogus’ assault on Norton“, Jan. 18.
2000: “The right to be poisoned“, Nov. 30; “A job offer for the judge“, Sept. 25-26 (see also April 12, 2001); “Maryland: knowledge, notice not needed to sue landlords over lead“, Apr. 24; “Game over four decades ago: let’s change the rules” (retroactive Md. legislation), Mar. 15; see also Baltimore Sun special coverage); “New York court nixes market-share liability for paint“, Jan. 17.
1999: “‘The Dutch Boy isn’t Joe Camel’“, Nov. 10; “Covers the earth with litigation“, Oct. 14.
Archived product liability items, pre-July 2003
(See separate pages for food and beverage cases, asbestos, pharmaceutical and vaccine cases, lead paint, auto safety, aviation, environmental, firearms, high-tech, media and tobacco litigation)
“Texas’s giant legal reform“, Jun. 18-19, 2003.
“Artificial hearts experimental? Who knew?“, Oct. 23, 2002.
“Sorry, wrong number” (Angelos vs. cell phones), Apr. 23, 2001; “By reader acclaim“, Jan. 11, 2001 (& Oct. 1-2, 2002: judge dismisses case).
“Read the label, then ignore it if you like” (flammable carpet adhesive), Jul. 12-14, 2002.
“Pitcher hit by line drive sues maker of baseball bat“, Apr. 19-21, 2002.
“Warning on fireplace log: ‘risk of fire’“, Jan. 25-27, 2002; “‘Wacky Warning Label’ winners“, Jan. 19-21, 2001; “Never iron clothes while they’re being worn” (more contest winners), Jan. 18, 2000 (& letter to editor, Jan. 21-23).
“‘How many people will this kill, I wonder?’” (EU product liability, blood suppliers), Jan. 18-20, 2002.
“Defoliant litigation proves evergreen” (Agent Orange), Jan. 7-8, 2002 (& see Apr. 3-4).
“Under the Christmas tree” (BB guns), Dec. 21-23, 2001.
“Segway, the super-wheelchair, and the FDA“, Dec. 13-14, 2001.
“Can’t find the arsonists? Sue the sofa-maker“, Nov. 19-20, 2001; “Somebody to sue” (furnishings and building-supply cos. sued after fire), June 1, 2000.
“Disclaimer rage?” (GPS software), Oct. 15, 2001.
“Target: trade associations” (National Spa & Pool Institute case), Sept. 5, 2001.
“Latex liability, foreseeable or not“, July 26, 2001; “Breakthrough for plaintiffs on latex gloves?“, July 18, 2000; “Rhode Island A.G.: let’s do latex gloves next“, Oct. 26, 1999.
“Claim: inappropriate object in toothpaste caused heart attack“, May 29, 2001.
“While you were out: the carbonless paper crusade“, Apr. 25, 2001.
“Plastic cup blamed for child’s autism“, Apr. 9, 2001.
“Tendency of elastic items to recoil well known“, Mar. 6, 2001; “Hunter sues store over camouflage mask“, Jan. 12-14, 2001.
“‘Juries handing out bigger product liability awards’“, Feb. 2-4, 2001.
“Anti-Ritalin lawyers still acting out” (trade association liability), Apr. 13-15, 2001; “Promising areas for suits“, Dec. 7, 2000.
“Product liability criminalized?“, Oct. 20-22, 2000.
“Product liability: Americanization of Europe?“, Oct. 18, 2000.
“Senator Lieberman: a sampler” (sponsored product liability reform), Aug. 8-9, 2000.
“Never too stale a claim” (suits against manufacturers over products built in early 20th century), Jul. 14-16, 2000.
“‘Backstage at News of the Weird’” (liquid drain cleaner), Jun. 29-Jul. 1, 2000.
“‘Skydivers don’t sue’“, May 26-29, 2000.
“House passes liability reforms“, Feb. 24, 2000.
“Driving up housing costs” (Calif. construction defect cases), Dec. 10, 1999.
Computer glitches: “Toshiba and Ford, in the same boat“, Dec. 2, 1999; “Don’t redeem that coupon!” (Andrew Tobias), Nov. 24-25; “How I hit the class action jackpot” (Stuart Taylor), Nov. 17; “More details on Toshiba“, Nov. 5-7; “Toshiba flops over“, Nov. 3, 1999.
“Class actions vs. high tech“, Nov. 23, 1999.
“Baleful blurbs” (publishers’ liability for inaccuracies on book jackets), Nov. 16, 1999.
“Foam-rubber cow recall“, Oct. 22, 1999.
“Reform stirrings on public contingency fees“, Oct. 15, 1999.
“This side of parodies” (fictional account of self-inflicted icepick injury), Oct. 5-6, 1999.
“Fertilizer manufacturers not liable for World Trade Center bombing“, Aug. 23, 1999.
“Plus extra damages for having argued with us” (liability for global warming?), Aug. 19, 1999.
“Overlawyered skies not always safer” (“self-critical analysis” issue), Jul. 19, 1999.
Other resources:
The home page of Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson contains a listing of his writings on product liability.