(c) 2022 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

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

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.
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]