Firms to pay $1.1-billion in long-running lead paint lawsuit

In an historic ruling, a California Judge, held the lead paint pigment manufacturers liable for the damage they caused children by placing toxic lead pigment into paint. The companies will be held accountable for the remediation required to make homes and other buildings safe. The case was prosecuted by a team of lawyers, including nationally recognized lead litigation experts, Motley Rice, Providence, RI. This article is shared from the latimes.com

A Northern California judge Monday ordered three companies to pay $1.1 billion to remove lead-based paint from inside California homes, concluding a 13-year legal case.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg ruled that ConAgra, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams created a “public nuisance” by selling lead-based paint for decades before it was banned in 1978, finding them liable for exposing children to a known poison.

The opinion set aside $605 million, or 55% of the judgment, to pay for lead removal in Los Angeles County. The money will go into a fund administered by the state’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch and will pay for inspections and lead abatement on the inside walls of tens of thousands of homes.

“The court is convinced there are thousands of California children in the Jurisdictions whose lives can be improved, if not saved through a lead abatement plan,” the judge’s ruling said.

Local governments sued major paint manufacturers in 2000,...


[Click here to see the rest of this post]
Click here to read the complete Decision. People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Case No. 1-00-CV-788657

Found on

Related articles

• Plaintiffs' expert says lead paint abatement could cost $1.4 billion (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Occupational exposure to lead paint
• Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Judge again asks sides to settle in Calif. lead paint case (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• California cities seek $1 billion settlement for lead paint-related health care costs (publicintegrity.org)

Plaintiffs in Calif. lead paint case say companies’ witnesses were ‘not persuasive’

The lead paint industry has not yet come to the table to settle the public health nightmare of lead pigment in paint. Soon California may change the economics of the problem. Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

SAN JOSE, Calif. (Legal Newsline) — The plaintiffs in a six-week trial over lead paint — 10 cities and counties in California — argue that the one-time paint and pigment manufacturers they’re suing have not presented a “persuasive” case. The cities and counties — Santa Clara County, San Francisco City, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Monterey County, Oakland City, San Diego City, San Mateo County, Solano County and Ventura County — filed their 52-page statement of decision with the Santa Clara County Superior Court Friday. Friday was the deadline for all parties in the lead paint trial, which wrapped up last month, to submit their proposed statements of decision, as requested by Judge James Kleinberg. Kleinberg is presiding over The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al. Kleinberg In their statement of decision, the plaintiffs argue that their witnesses were “credible,” and that the defendants’ witnesses — which refuted evidence offered by the cities and counties — were “not persuasive.” “Defendants contend that ‘intact’ lead paint does not present a hazard. The Court finds that the evidence demonstrates otherwise,” the plaintiffs wrote in their statement and proposed order. “Lead paint on high friction surfaces presents an immediate hazard, even if it is presently intact, because normal use causes the paint to degrade, exposing young...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on