Did you know that growing research is pointing to the fact that lead poisoning is what may have brought down the Roman empire, as lead was commonly used for plumbing in Rome. The periodic table symbol for lead is pb (plumbus) latin for plumbing.

It was just conclusively proven through DNA hair follicle evidence that in fact Beetohven’s illness and subsequent death was caused by lead poisoning.

Ben Franklin wrote extensively about the fact that lead was a deadly poison, yet in the face of knowledge since antiquity that lead was a deadly poison, these paint manufacturers, and Our government (most likely through lobbying) allowed, and promoted its use, shameful, criminal

To those who think this is a “ridiculous lawsuit” did you know that in 1908 Australia banned lead paint? And that paint companies KNEW the dangerous propensities of their product, but yet continued to sell it?

Fast forward to the 1920’s. Lead Paint was banned in Europe in 1921. I was fortunate enough to be privy to evidence that was presented during the RI v. Paint Manufacturers suit.

There is a fairly large amount of documentation, detailing the Paint companies KNEW they were selling a lethal product, in which their internal counsel was pleading with them to use alternative formulas which excluded lead, and were feasible, and every bit as functional as the lethal lead formula.

What do you think the Paint Manufactuers reponse to this was? Internal documents SHOW that not only did the paint companies not discontinue the sale of lead based paint, these manufacturers actually were instructing their personnel to “go on the offensive” to stop the attack on our product”.

How do you think they did this? with obituaries piling up of deaths from lead paint, these companies has the audacity to undertake advertising campaigns that stated that lead was “good for your health”

The RI Attorney General sued under a Public Nuisance theory, which doesn’t require “scienter” (knowledge) on the manufacturers part, but when you see how insideous these greedy corporations were, its just icing on the cake

I read here where there are those that say that, why doesn’t the state just keep on top of enforcing maintenance, or lanlords just have to maintain the paint.

Truth is its costs ALOT of money to maintain lead paint programs, as well as maintenance, which would not have to be bourne by state tax payers, were it not for the careless negligent acts of these manufacturers decades before,

Yes Lead Paint hasn’t been sold since 1978 in America, but on many streets in Providence RI, it might as well still be 1950, because the paint that was put on decades ago, still is there, and unfortunately it is killing our nations kids to this day.

Before those of you here make comments, do the research, you may find that the lead paint issue, could well become one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of America.

Please debate me on this topic, there is not one thing any of you can challenge me on, as there is NOTHING to debate, these criminals are guilty and should be taken to task for ruining the lives of thousands of children, money can never make up for what they have done to the world.

If I recall i can still legally purchase tobacco products in the USA right?

Careful:
“Isn’t there a federalism issue here (to the extent that it isn’t yet dead)? If it isn’t necessary to hold that the paint in question was manufactured in RI or sold by the defendant in RI, isn’t RI punishing alleged tortuous conduct that occurred outside its jurisdiction?”

Such thinking is what really started the civil war in this country!

“I would prefer we get rid of the uncertainty in business. Either explicitly state “you can not be sued for selling the following products provided you …” or state “by selling *any* product you assume all risks regarding its inherent dangerousness” (i.e., strict liability). From what I can tell we currently say “to sell this product you must follow these steps, but that’s not any kind of defense if you later get sued.”"

The attorneys running your congress, legal system, and such will never allow such. I mean where would they be able to go for unreasonable fees? You just ask way too much.

“That’s how John Edwards was able to win lawsuits against hospitals for not doing Caesarians when Edwards would’ve recommended one, even though the science around the question wasn’t settled, and later determined that C-sections wouldn’t have done any good.”

Oh nice that you point out one of the biggest scoundrels in the nation for abuse of the legal system! Made millions and millions off of those suits, his clients probably got pennies on the dollar. He spins a different tune today.

You can bet he will NEVER support tort reform in any form!

He cares not how many he puts out of work due to the bankruptcies he causes. Could care less about those people, probably figures they had it coming for working for such a vile company that dared to treat people in need of medical attention.

FARK him and 100% of those like him!

I figure if an attorney desires to run for a public office outside of county or state attorney, they can give up the bar the day they sign up as an candidate! Sure they will make excuses about all sorts of things, but every one of them will spout their desire to be public servant, fine, the day the file, they give it up, The day they leave office they can REtake the bar!

ciao

I agree, that you would think a statute of limitations should be in play here (it’s 5 years for rape according to Law & Order, ha) but it would appear that it is not a factor here.

As far as the government or any property owner being liable in this case, it is not in play. The play here is to divert all responsibility to the manufacturers, crazy huh?

Causation, from what I have read about this case was never required. The causes of elevated lead levels have never been proven nor was any evidence brought forth to prove what company provided paint when & where.

A couple of other items that are less than clear to me, the original suit listed 8 paint companies, this re-trial only listed 4 defendents (one of which the jury found not liable, quite curious). Another of the original 8 paid 12m to buy a free pass from the state, but what happened to the other 3?

Please note that I am not a lawyer but it is my firm belief that common sense has taken an extended vacation in our country. I also thought that the tobacco suits were a joke because I do believe in personal responsibility.

First of all, the fact that something was legal alone doesn’t mean that you’re exempt from civil liability, in particular if the paint companies knew it was harmful and marketed it anyway.

Second of all, the deterioration of paint is fairly foreseeable. It happens when there are leaks or settling. Structures are finite and fragile, and an expectation that paint will just remain intact isn’t reasonable. So when that happens and lead dust gets around, it’s not “misuse” of their product.

The 60-year thing raises some statute of limitations questions, which may very well be a valid defense. I don’t know that much about the case.

Government entities (like public housing projects) have been found liable in tort for the presence of lead paint.

Lastly, the question of whether lead paint in homes causes brain damage is a causation question; in order words, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that issue you’re raising a dispute about. If you’re correct about the dispute in a particular case, then I would agree that no liability should attach.

For instance, cars must have certain safety equipment, meet government crash tests, etc., but that doesn’t provide any shield for car makers when lawyers think up a new legal theory of liability. Either we need to give those automakers qualified immunity, or we need to make them entirely responsible so they’ve got notice and can take whatever steps they consider worthwhile and cost-effective (including not selling cars, or making cars that automatically follow the speed limit, etc.). I vote for the first option (qualified immunity), but I have to admit that the second option (strict liability) exists.

What was it that Shakespeare said about the lawyers? Make like Metallica and Kill ‘Em All?

The lead paint industry fought very hard against efforts to regulate its use. The fact that it wasn’t banned until 1978 doesn’t exonerate it; instead, it’s testimony to the political pull of lead paint manufacturers who could have taught the tobacco industry how to concoct arguments against even acknowledgement that a product was harmful.

Even though lead was banned a long time ago, all structures built before 1978 still have lead in the walls which can hurt kids if the walls start to deteriorate. That’s because additional coats of paint get added to interiors; what’s under it doesn’t get removed. The only way to really remove it is to do a lead paint abatement, which is a very costly and difficult process. So costly and difficult that anti-lead paint advocates usually don’t think it should be done unless the paint on the wall has deteriorated; otherwise, it’s not worth it to kick up more dust, which inevitably happens in an abatement.

I don’t have a strong opinion about whether mass torts are the best way to address this problem or not, but like alcoholism, it would be nice to admit that there is a problem and that the cost is going to be bourne by someone — paint manufacturers who made a dangerous product that they (successfully) fought for years to keep on the shelves, or kids who get injured through no fault of their own.