Durability + Design
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on LinkedIn Like us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram Visit the TPC Store
Search the site

 

D+D News

Main News Page


Supreme Court: Lead Case May Proceed

Friday, May 22, 2015

More items for Coatings Technology

Comment | More

WASHINGTON, D.C.—A teenager's lawsuit alleging lead-paint poisoning may go forward, even though he  cannot say which company's paint caused the problem.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge by paint makers to Wisconsin’s “risk contribution” theory of liability, allowing the teen's suit—and almost 200 others—to move forward.

In denying the paint makers' petition for review Monday (May 18), the high court let stand a July 2014 U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said the companies could be held liable for contributing to the teen's risk of injury, even though he could not identify which company caused the harm.

The decisions potentially expose the paint makers to hundreds of millions of dollars in liability.

Case Details

Plaintiff Ernest Gibson, now 18, alleges that he suffered poisoning and neurological defects from lead-based paint in his Milwaukee home, which was built in 1919.

Lead-based paint
© iStock.com / Hoppyard Hoppyard

Former producers of white lead carbonate used in paints face nearly 200 cases based on risk-contribution theory in Wisconsion. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a review of the theory, potentially exposing the defendants to hundreds of millions of dollars in liability.

However, Gibson cannot not identify the manufacturer, supplier or distributors of the paint in question. So, he filed suit in December 2006 against eight former manufacturers of white lead carbonate or their successors.

Five defendants remain: American Cyanamid Company, Atlantic Richfield Company, The Sherwin-Williams Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, and Armstrong Containers.

Former defendant NL Industries Inc. settled with Gibson. Another defendant went bankrupt, and a third was voluntarily dismissed, according to court documents.

In federal court, the manufacturers argued successfully that the "risk contribution" theory violated the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. However, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

Constitutional Argument

In petitioning the Supreme Court, the companies argued that "risk contribution" was an “arbitrary, gross, retroactive assignment of liability [that] offends fundamental requirements of due process.”

The theory could hold them liable for an unlimited number of claims dating back 60 years or more, the companies said.

EPA
EPA

Lead was banned from residential paint in 1978, but millions of U.S. home still have it, authorities say.

"The rule makes manufacturers of white lead carbonate pigments responsible for all injuries caused by ingestion of lead paint in Wisconsin," the petition said, "regardless of whether the manufacturers were manufacturing white lead carbonate when the paint was actually made or applied; regardless of how long the manufacturers participated in the market; and even though all the manufacturers left the industry long before the risk-contribution rule was formulated."

Risk Contribution

The Wisconsin Supreme Court extended the risk-contribution rule to lead-paint lawsuits in a 2005 decision, Thomas v. Mallett. (The opinion was written by Justice Louis Butler, who was reportedly defeated for re-election by outraged business interests.)

The decision said a lead-poisoning plaintiff did not have to prove a particular manufacturer caused the injury—only that the company made or sold white lead carbonate pigment at the time the plaintiff's home existed, according to reports.

The decision thus put the burden on the manufacturer to prove that it did not cause the injury or that its products were not used in that region.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

Support Brief

The American Coatings Association, National Association of Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and two other organizations submitted a brief in support of the paint makers.

The brief said the rule exemplified "a broader trend in which courts are applying novel tort theories by which individuals are forced to pay damages for injuries without proof of causation."

brain
© 2008 Cecil et al; CC BY 3.0

The brains of adults exposed to lead as children show decreased volume (shown here in color), according to a 2008 study. Ernest Gibson alleges poisoning and neurological defects from lead paint in his old Milwaukee home.

“These theories of liability without causation ignore traditional practice dating back to pre-Revolutionary times and pose a direct threat to the fabric of our constitutional system.”

174 Cases to Begin

Gibson’s attorney, Peter G. Earle, contends that such arguments ignore that the companies "negligently and culpably promoted white lead carbonate for use as a pigment in residential paint, despite knowing that it would cause harm to children."

"Like David versus Goliath, the lead-poisoned children of Wisconsin have defeated the efforts of large wealthy corporations to obtain immunity by closing the state’s court room doors such claims," he said in an e-mailed statement.

Now, Gibson’s case and 173 others have been reinstated and can move forward, according to the Journal Sentinel.

And while some of those cases might be settled out of court, "we think some will never settle," Earle said.

He expects trials to start early next year.

The attorney for the defendant companies did not respond Thursday (May 20) to a request for comment.

   

Tagged categories: Coating chemistry; Coatings manufacturers; Laws and litigation; Lead; Raw materials; Regulations

Comment from peter matelyan, (5/22/2015, 3:35 AM)

Follow the logic of this decsion and thereby allow the state and federal governments agencies also be held responsible for the sale of such products in each state. Where does it stop?


Comment from M. Halliwell, (5/22/2015, 10:36 AM)

To me, it doesn't make sense to go about it this way. I'd be more inclined to think this should be certified as a class action lawsuit...paint companies as defendants, and everyone else as plaintiffs. Once the action is complete, it's done with (yeah, I know...long, long time by the time everything is done).


Comment from Catherine Brooks, (6/1/2015, 3:36 PM)

I agree with M. Halliwell about making this a HUGE class action suit. However, only if the families who continue to pay greatly both financially and emotionally for special services, medical care, education, etc for their poisoned children are given fair restitution. These families are surfacing even more now days as the older homes' paints are deteriorating.


Comment from Catherine Brooks, (6/1/2015, 3:37 PM)

Thank you D& D editor for publicizing this important report.


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Advertisements
 
Shield Industries, Inc
 
FireGuard® E-84 Intumescent Coating - Shield Industries, Inc
 
Trust the certified protection of the industry’s most innovative intumescent coating FireGuard® E-84 to provide you with the 1 and 2 hour fire ratings you need.
 

 
Novatek Corporation
 
Novatek Portable Air Filtration Systems
 
Air Scrubbers/Negative Air machines for restoration, abatement, dust & odor control, hazardous contaminant removal from job sites to clean rooms and hospitals. Portable, affordable!
 

 
Keim Mineral Coatings
 
Mineral Silicate Paints + Stains Fuse to Concrete
 
• Forms permanent chemical bonds
• Becomes part of the concrete
• Will never peel
• Looks completely natural
 

 
 
 

Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL webmaster@durabilityanddesign.com


The Technology Publishing Network

Durability + Design PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

 

© Copyright 2012-2018, Technology Publishing Co., All rights reserved