R.I. Judge Rules Out Punitive Damages in Lead Paint Decision

February 28, 2006

  • March 1, 2006 at 2:27 am
    Roger Mount says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    At least the Judge disallowed punitive damages but, the fact that a jury found the paint manufacturers to be liable in the first place is inequitable. Everyone knows that paint used to contain lead and, at the time it was sold, it was not thought to be a significant health hazard.
    Lead paint hasn\’t been available for decades – so how have these children been affected? One can only assume this is possible because the houses that they were living in haven\’t been redecorated for decades. There must be significant culpability on the part of the parents and/or the property owners. Lead paint can only cause ill-health when it is being applied or, when it is so old that starts to flake. Apart from having it professionally removed, the easiest way to make it safe it to cover it with modern paint. Of course the companies that end up paying for these decisions are the Insurers and, ultimately, everyone who buys insurance. A clean up cost of $3,000,000,000 from just one state seems large enough but, when all the other states jump on the bandwagon it will escalate to some mindblowingly stupid figure.

  • March 1, 2006 at 4:49 am
    Chris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Of course the primary responsibility lies with the property owners who have not either removed the lead paint, or properly \”encapsulated\” the lead paint so that it can no longer be a hazard. But, the deep-pocket paint companies aren\’t voters. Thus, who should pay to remediate is a \”no brainer\” for any politician.

    What is truly amazing to me is that the State didn\’t have to prove that any paint manufacturer actually produced or sold the paint that still presents a risk. How can that possibly pass constitutional muster?

  • March 1, 2006 at 6:21 am
    MONARCH says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Datz why I moved out of RI. Unfortunately, I am now in CA and if you think RI is bad, come to Los Angeles. You don\’t even need to be legal to \”collect\” here.

  • March 2, 2006 at 3:18 am
    RWB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Even better, RI governmental agencies were requiring the use of lead-based paint in government-owned project housing bid specs at the time, because the paint would last longer. Check the The Providence Journal (Rhode Island)February 28, 2006 Tuesday Edition. \”Punitive damages for paint argued The Providence Journal\” for some discussion of the situation.
    The problem for the paint companies is that they knew the dangers of lead and have been determined to have created a public nuisance. Assistant Attorney General Neil Kelly argued Tuesday that the companies acted recklessly by making and selling lead pigment despite knowing the product was dangerous. However, under RI law, they would have had to have intended that the injuries occur, not just known that the injuries certainly would occur.

  • March 2, 2006 at 3:55 am
    Chris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    RWB,

    So, does that mean in this case that the jury found that the paint companies intended for the injuries to occur? If that wasn\’t part of the finding, isn\’t that an issue on appeal?

  • March 2, 2006 at 4:32 am
    RWB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The court held that the paint companies did not intend that the injuries would occur. Therefore, no punitive damages could be awarded. However, because the paint companies were substantially certain that SOME injuries would occur they were responsible for creating a nuisance. I\’m sure there will be many appeals.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*