The US Supreme Court declined to review a California Supreme Court decision holding multiple lead paint manufacturers responsible for cleanup costs amounting to over $400 million. The longstanding litigation was brought under the theory that lead paint contamination was a public nuisance. Lead paint has been known for decades as toxic.
Showing posts with label public nuisance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public nuisance. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Friday, August 16, 2013
Coal Industry: The Next Target for a Major Lawsuit
The focus the past several weeks has been the lawsuit in California against the Lead Paint Industry. The lawsuit, pending for over a decade, was brought under the legal theory of "public nuisance." The case seeks to finally force the major suppliers of lead paint to the table to help in removing and correcting the alleged public and private health dangers the Industry created by marketing paint with lead pigment.
While the lead paint case is in its finals trial stages, a theory has emerged to litigate against the Coal Industry for its alleged acts that have damaged public health through crating industrial pollution.
"Coal industry executives ought to pay attention to the lead paint lawsuit currently happening in the California court system.
"Recently, a lawsuit was filed against the makers of lead paint, alleging that the industry knew about the toxicity of their product and yet still promoted it as “safe” to the public. The industry has faced many lawsuits over their products in the past, most of which were unsuccessful for the victims, due to the fact that the industry was often up front about the dangers of their products, and they funded public studies to determine the health effects.
"But things have changed in the American legal system, and attorneys are now taking a page out of the tobacco litigation playbook. By unearthing documents that detail the lead paint industry’s attempted cover-up of the dangers, they avoid the “buyer beware” caveat that the tobacco industry used for so long.
While the lead paint case is in its finals trial stages, a theory has emerged to litigate against the Coal Industry for its alleged acts that have damaged public health through crating industrial pollution.
"Coal industry executives ought to pay attention to the lead paint lawsuit currently happening in the California court system.
"Recently, a lawsuit was filed against the makers of lead paint, alleging that the industry knew about the toxicity of their product and yet still promoted it as “safe” to the public. The industry has faced many lawsuits over their products in the past, most of which were unsuccessful for the victims, due to the fact that the industry was often up front about the dangers of their products, and they funded public studies to determine the health effects.
"But things have changed in the American legal system, and attorneys are now taking a page out of the tobacco litigation playbook. By unearthing documents that detail the lead paint industry’s attempted cover-up of the dangers, they avoid the “buyer beware” caveat that the tobacco industry used for so long.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Plaintiffs’ expert says lead paint abatement could cost $1.4 billion
Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com
 |
| Kleinberg |
Research director Dr. David Jacobs of the National Center for Healthy Housing and an authority in abatement procedures testified for plaintiffs Thursday that the cost of a lead paint abatement program could exceed $1.4 billion in the 10 California jurisdictions pursuing a “public nuisance” case against paint manufacturers.
The trial taking place in Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg’s court is now into its fourth week. The case is expected to continue next week when plaintiffs introduce their last witness and defendants take the stand to argue that no public health threat exists, and that for what little exposure does exist in California, lead paint is not the primary source.
The plaintiffs, including Los Angeles and Santa Clara Counties and the cities of San Diego and San Francisco, are asking one time lead paint and pigment manufacturers to pay for the abatement costs of eliminating lead paint from homes to protect public health. Defendants NL Industries, the Sherwin-Williams Company, ConAgra Grocery Products, DuPont and Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), claim the suit is without merit, that blood lead levels in California are close to zero and that other exposures, such as gasoline, are more likely to elevate blood lead levels than lead paint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)