A court in RI jst found three p[aint compnies LIABLE for damages, for injuries caused by the LEAD-based paints manufactured by them 9in onc case over 100 years ago). Is this a triumph of jurisprudence, or another step toward bankrupty several large companies? My take on this is: the dangers of lead paint was known about 40 years ago-and most paint mfgs. responded by removing lead oxide from their paints 9the subsititute was titanium dioxide, which is non-toxic0. So these companies acted in a responsible manner.
i fear now that the legal industry will start some serious litigation…there must be huge money in future jury awards! Now, not being a lawyer, i don’t see how society benefits from this litigation-but I’m sure a LOT of lawyers stand to get rich on this one.
Dunno anything about the RI case but lead paint cases are all over the place, including a multi-defendant suit, the first of its kind in the nation, in Wisconsin.
It can’t be both?
You’re hung up on the idea that a company shouldn’t be held liable in tort if it acted “responsibly.” But why should it be? The manufacturers, apparently, manufactured a product that hurt people. Why is is not their responsibility to make sure their product is in fact safe before releasing it on an unsuspecting public? Fortunately for society, we have a broader view of when manufacturers should be held responsible for the injuries their products cause.
–Cliffy
Seems to me that a company, making a LEGAL product should not be held liable for claims made for damages caused from “improper use.” Paint is not meant to be eaten. When the dangers were made known, and/or outlawed they stopped making the paint.
in the WI case, a 15yo brought suit in 1999, meaning he was born in 1984. 6 years after lead paint was banned. If there is a party at fault here it would be whoever owned the building where the paint was peeling and eaten by the child, rather than the manufacturer. Prior to the ban, one might have made a claim that they “knew the risks,” but I still think that if it’s not illegal to make a product with legal substances, and the product is used as recommended, it’s not the fault of the manufacturer. Just my opinion of course, IANAL (thank God)
I agree-this case will open the floodgates for lawsuits against any manufacturer who ever used a hazardous substance. I suppose we should all be sueing manufacturers of sun tanning beds (skin cancer), mcdonalds (big macs), makers of mercury-containing switches Honeywell( thermostats), gasoline (TETRAETHYL lead). Get ready!
The first part of the quote from your cite casts a pretty long shadow.
The health dangers of lead have long been known. Google Devonshire Colic, also known as Painter’s Colic. The English County of Devon has lead mines and I’m sure that the knowledge of slow lead poisoning has been known there, and in the medical community at large, for more than 100 years. That was the time of manufacture of some of the paint mentioned in the OP.
Therefore, any manufacturer who ever made lead-based paint can be said to have made it after the dangers to health were known.
I agree with butler1850 that if anyone is at fault it’s the owner of the building. I would add add the parents of the child who either knew or should have known not to let a baby eat paint peelings.
I know nothing of the facts of the case, but the question of liability of the building owners is probably something that the plaintiffs could raise at trial.