Rhode Island Lawsuit
Facts
about Lead Poisoning in Rhode Island:
-
35,227
children have suffered lead poisoning since 1993
-
Approximately
30,000 housing units pose serious health risks because of lead
-
The
state now screens 77 percent of Rhode Island children by the time they reach 18
months of age
-
40-50
individuals and small communities have attempted to sue paint companies for
causing lead poisoning since 1989 - all have been defeated.
The State's Claim:
The
state claims that it has been damaged because it has incurred, and continues to
incur, substantial costs related to discovering and abating lead, detecting lead
poisoning, and providing (i) medical and/or other care for lead-poisoned
residents of this state, (ii) education programs for children suffering injuries
as a result of lead exposure and (iii) education programs for state residents.
Paint Companies involved in the lawsuit:
In
the Lawsuit filed, the State Named nine defendants:
Lead Industries Association, Inc.; American Cyanamid Company; Atlantic
Richfield Company; E.I. DuPont De Nemours And Company; The O'Brien Company; The
Gladden Company; NL Industries, Inc.; SCM Chemicals, and The Sherwin-Williams
Company
Set-by-Set
approach to the case:
-
Phase
1 is to
prove that lead paint manufacturers have created a public health hazard.
-
Phase
2 is to
determine if paint companies are liable for the hazard and which ones
specifically.
-
Phase
3 will
determine what the ramifications should be and if third parties, such as
landlords and contractors, should be also held responsible.
The
Lead Industries Official Viewpoint:
The
paint companies argue that landlords are solely responsible for the hazard.
They claim that lead-based paint isn't hazardous if it taken care of
properly. Paint companies' claim
that landlords allowed the properties to deteriorate to the point that lead
pigment is exposed and children come in contact with it.
Calendar
of Events during the case:
9/3/02
The
Nation's paint companies made one final attempt to delay the trail that was set
to begin on September 4th. They
accused that the state's reliance on legal teams working for contingency fees
was unethical. Judge Michael
Silverstein rejected this argument on the basis that the trail will cost
"millions and possibly multiple millions of dollars" and it is
necessary for the state to use private law firms to be paid with contingency
fees.
9/4/02
Trial
Began
Opening statements
State's first witness, Dr. Phillip J. Landrigan, testified and presented
many statistics about lead poisoning and it's ramifications
9/5/02
The City of Chicago went forth and filed a lawsuit against several paint
companies. The City of Chicago
feels that taxpayers should no longer be the sole financiers to pay for
treatment of lead poisoned children. Chicago
has more lead poisoned children than any city in the country and it estimates
that there are more than 1 million housing units that contain lead.
9/5/02
- 10/1/02
Dr.
Michael Shannon, A
Boston pediatrician who has treated an estimated 5,000 children for lead
poisoning, testified that he knows of no levels of lead that would be safe for
children to absorb.
Several additional witnesses of the state, who are recognized and
honorable lead advocates, testified that lead exposure is harmful to children's
health.
Witnesses for
the State include:
·
Dr.
Philip J. Landrigan
·
Dr.
Michael Shannon,
professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and clinical director of the
Pediatric Environmental Health Center at Children's Hospital in Boston
·
Dr.
James D. Sargent,
of Dartmouth Medical School
·
Dr.
Peter Simon,
head of the state Health Department's program to combat childhood lead poisoning
·
Kim
Dietrich,
a professor of environmental health and pediatrics at the University of
Cincinnati College of Medicine
·
Patricia
Nolan,
State Health Director
·
Dr.
Herbert L. Needleman,
One of the nation's leading researchers into the
effects of lead poisoning
9/18/02
Childhood
Lead Action Project displayed 640 tiny pairs of shoes to represent the number of
children lead-poisoned in Providence in the last six months
9/25/02
The
state sought to introduce two surprise witnesses who would rebut what the
misleading opening statement from the defense
9/26/02
The
court ruled that the
state could not present witnesses to rebut opening statements by the paint
companies that the state argued were misleading and untrue
9/30/02
The
state won a victory when the Court ruled that the paint companies could not
introduce as evidence three studies by Brown University students that highlight
the role of bad landlords and poor maintenance in causing the lead poisoning of
Rhode Island children. Judge Silverstein said the state Department of Health hadn't
done much with the studies so he precluded them from the trial.
Judge Silverstein also announced that he excused a juror on 9/29/02 for
personal reasons. This was the
second juror let go during the lengthy trial. Two weeks prior another was
excused because of work conflicts. Silverstein moved an alternate to the
six-person jury, leaving just four alternates
10/1/02
Dr.
Herbert L. Needleman, wrapped up the state's case by
questioning why there isn't a national campaign to remove all lead from houses
10/2/02
The state got a major victory when Judge
Silverstein rejected a paint company argument for him to raise the bar of proof
required for the state to win its case. He
stated that he could find nothing in Rhode Island law that directly
responds to the type of issues he faces with the paint suit, Silverstein ruled
that the state needs only present a preponderance of evidence to win its case.
10/3/02
Paint
companies argue to have the state's case against them dismissed, again
presenting a photo of a lead-painted Victorian house they say is harmless.
After
listening to nearly three hours of arguments, Judge Silverstein said he would
rule the following week.
10/7/02
Patrick
Connor, president of Connor Environmental Services who is an expert on
lead-paint inspections, testified that in surveying thousands of houses across
the country that had been treated with lead paint, only about 5 percent actually
posed hazards.
10/8/02
Prof.
Joseph Stein, a Brown University chemistry professor, testified that if lead
paint is covered with just one coat of non-lead paint, the lead could remain
intact on a house for centuries
10/23/02 The State and the Defense, expect to deliver their closing arguments bring this part of the case to a close
10/29/02
Superior Count Judge Michael A. Silverstein declared a mistrial in the
case. The six member sent a note to the judge shortly after 2:00pm
reporting that it could not reach a unanimous decision on whether the paints
constituted a
10/30/02 The State of Rhode Island Attorney General's office said that it expects to try the case again with a new Jury as soon as possible
For
more information about this case please visit: http://www.projo.com/extra/lead/