A California judge has ordered Sherwin-Williams-parent company of DuraSeal-NL Industries and ConAgra to pay $1.1 billion to help nine of the state's cities and counties remove lead paint from homes, deciding that the companies violated public nuisance laws by promoting the use of lead paint while they knew it was dangerous, according to Legal Newsline. (Editor's Note: The lawsuit is specific to old paint products, not wood floor finishes or the DuraSeal brand.)
A California judge has ordered Sherwin-Williams-parent company of DuraSeal-NL Industries and ConAgra to pay $1.1 billion to help nine of the state's cities and counties remove lead paint from homes, deciding that the companies violated public nuisance laws by promoting the use of lead paint while they knew it was dangerous, according to Legal Newsline. (Editor's Note: The lawsuit is specific to old paint products, not wood floor finishes or the DuraSeal brand.)
The decision in the 13-year-old case was filed Dec. 16 by Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg.
"The People sought to prove that defendants assisted in the creation of this nuisance by concealing the dangers of lead, mounting a campaign against its regulation, and promoting lead paint for interior use," Kleinberg wrote in his decision. "The People further claimed defendants did so despite their knowledge for nearly a century that such a use of lead paint was hazardous. Had defendants not done so, it is asserted, lead paint would not have been incorporated into the interiors of such a large number of structures and would not have created the public health hazard that the People contend now exists."
The defendants have 15 days to appeal the decision, and Bonnie Campbell, spokesperson for the three companies, said in a statement that they do plan to file objections with the trial judge.
"The judge's decision says that there is a lack of government resources to remove all lead paint from inside homes," Campbell said in a statement. "But no plaintiff has asked the legislature for more money, and state and local law permits intact lead paint to remain safely in place, because removing the lead paint is unnecessary and can create hazards to children. It is also not the role of the courts to create or expand public policy programs established by the legislature and funded through regulatory fees. This decision overreaches, oversteps the role of courts, and is wrong."
Campbell also noted that the public nuisance cases filed in seven other jurisdictions-Ohio, Rhode Island, Missouri, New Jersey, Illinois, New York and Wisconsin-have all been rejected by the courts, rejected by the jury or voluntarily dismissed.
"In Rhode Island, the Supreme Court said in a ruling that 'the public nuisance claim should have been dismissed at the outset' because the State cannot allege that the defendants' conduct interfered with a public right or that the defendants were in control of lead pigment at the time it caused harm to children," Campbell said.
ARCO and DuPont were also named in the lawsuit, but Kleinberg dismissed them from liability because they were the result of prior mergers and acquisitions.
