Tuesday , July 17th 2018
 
       
 
Practice Areas
 
 
 

Jul-24-2001 Paint firms say they want cities' lawsuit tossed

U.S. chemical companies, trying to gain strategic advantage in a lead-poisoning lawsuit by California municipalities, have made another attempt to punch a hole in the case by attacking one of its chief claims -- the contention that paints sold through the mid-1950s were a "public nuisance."

Responding in Santa Clara County Superior Court to the public entities' third amended complaint, the companies argued that a critical public-nuisance charge dismissed by Judge Gregory Ward on June 1, but with permission to amend, should remain dead and buried.

The claim, revised and filed again three weeks later, is important because, if successful, it would enable authorities to solve what they say is a huge public-health problem by forcing the companies to pay for costly cleanup programs. According to the law, "public nuisance" refers to a range of actions, from petty to serious, that interfere with a common right and result in harm to public health, safety, peace, comfort or convenience.

The companies said Friday, however, that there is no legal basis for the claim, which they argued was essentially identical to the one Ward had provisionally tossed.

They argued further that the claim more properly belonged in the narrower realm of product-liability law, which allows payments for proven past injuries, but not for the prevention of future harms.

The companies said the public entities were asking Ward to "fundamentally rewrite California . . . law," citing a precedent favorable to them set in a 1994 suit by the city of San Diego against the U.S. Gypsum Co.

They also said: "Plaintiffs' attempt . . . would subject manufacturers, distributors and retailers of hundreds of everyday goods to vastly increased liability under the amorphous concept of 'nuisance.' "

Industry spokesman Drew Ketterer, former attorney general of Maine, said yesterday: "The facts and the law are on our side. The San Diego case makes it crystal clear that nuisance claims are barred against manufacturers."

The plaintiffs, which include San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland, initially brought suit in March 2000. They're accusing the industry of conspiring to promote and sell a toxic product -- lead paint -- that found its way into millions of American homes and buildings, on walls, furniture and even children's toys.

When ingested or inhaled, lead can cause neurological damage requiring extensive medical treatment and remedial education. Since most of the victims are young residents of older, ill-maintained low-income housing in urban areas, costs have been borne by the public. San Francisco has cared for at least 600 victims during the past decade.

Ingrid Evans, a deputy San Francisco city attorney, rejected the companies' argument that the public-nuisance claim be permanently dropped.

"The public entities have completely revamped the public-nuisance cause of action," she said. "We believe these amendments have adequately addressed the judge's concerns."

Added Kathryn Zoglin, a deputy Santa Clara County counsel: "We're not alleging that because lead paint is defective, it's a public nuisance. We're alleging that the companies' conduct in aggressively promoting and distributing the paint -- and failing to warn the public -- is the nuisance."

Defendants include Arco, Sherwin-Williams and du Pont.

Regardless of the judge's eventual ruling, the case will go forward on other charges, which include fraud, negligence and violations of the state Business and Professions Code. The next hearing is scheduled for Sept. 11.

In all Toxic Tort cases it is essential that measures be taken promptly to preserve evidence, investigate the incident in question, and to enable physicians or other expert witnesses to thoroughly evaluate any injuries. If you or a loved one is a victim of injury caused by a toxic substance, call now at or CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT A CASE FORM. The initial consultation is free of charge, and if we agree to accept your case, we will work on a contingent fee basis, which means we get paid for our services only if there is a monetary award or recovery of funds. Don't delay! You may have a valid claim and be entitled to compensation for your injuries, but a lawsuit must be filed before the statute of limitations expires.

<< back

The above is not legal advice. That can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of a particular, specific case and the relevant law. See Terms of Use.

 
Contact Us
 

For questions about personal injury laws, fill out the form below or contact us by phone.

Law Offices of
Fuentes & Berrio.LLP

709 E. Hillsboro Blvd.
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

(877) 354-LAWS
Toll Free
(954) 752-1110
Broward County
(305) 931-2002
Miami Dade
(561) 279-2424
Palm Beach
(352) 387-1000
Martin County
(954) 794-1212
Fax
If you would like to contact us or have us review your case, please fill out the form below.
 
 
 

Home | About us | contact us | newsletter | ESPAÑOL

Copyright © 2008 Fuentes & Berrio, L.L.P., All rights reserved | Developed by LawyerEdge