Close Menu X

How Can We Help?

Lead paint manufacturers ordered to pay $1.1 billion for abatement

In a surprising but welcome ruling, a California judge recently ruled that three lead paint companies are responsible for creating a public nuisance with their products, which were routinely used in homes before 1978. Ten cities and counties had sued Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries and ConAgra Grocery Products (as a successor company to W.P. Fuller & Co.) for the widespread lead paint hazards suffered by property owners across the state. They argued the manufacturers should be required to help clean it up, even though their product was legal at the time.

After a non-jury trial lasting some five weeks, the judge ordered the companies to pay $1.1 billion in abatement-related expenses to the municipalities. The order broke a string of losses in similar lawsuits brought by municipalities nationwide, which so far have failed in seven states.

One key to the plaintiffs’ case seems to have been evidence that some manufacturers knew that lead paint caused heavy-metal poisoning in children as early as the 1930s but took steps to conceal the risk from the public. The evidence was a 1937 report from a conference held to inform staff doctors at paint companies about the dangers of lead poisoning. The attendees were apparently ordered not to discuss the problem with others or to take any notes on the presentation.

A lawyer for Sherwin-Williams has said the 1937 conference was about occupational lead hazards, not lead paint. The companies also argued that numerous sources other than paint contribute to lead poisoning in children and, moreover, that the responsibility for poisoning caused by lead paint should fall on landlords who fail to keep lead-painted areas in good repair.

More than 3.5 million California homes are presumed to contain lead paint, according to the state legislature, and the numbers are likely similar here in New York and in most states.

Landlords who fail to mitigate or remediate known lead paint hazards should indeed be held responsible for the risk posed to children. Requiring landlords live up to their legal responsibility to provide reasonably safe premises, however, does not excuse the manufacturers of this ubiquitous yet potentially deadly product.

These paint companies could pay their shares of the judgment and change the future for millions of children. Instead, it seems they plan to spend the next decade or so appealing the decision.

Source: Insurance Journal, “Paint Manufacturers Held Liable for $1.1 Billion in California Lead Paint Case,” Joel Rosenblatt and Jack Kaskey, Bloomberg, Dec. 18, 2013

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Our Awards and Accolades

    • The Best Lawyers in America
    • The National Trail Lawyers | Top 100 | Trail Lawyers
    • Newsweek Leaders In Showcase Personal Injury | 2011
    • Lawyers of Distinction | 2018
    • 2014 | Litigator Awards | Ranked Top 1% of Lawyers
    • Nation's Premier | NAOPIA | Top Ten Attorney | Personal Injury
    • American Law Society | Official Home of America's Top Lawyers
    • Best Lawyers | Best Law Firms | U.S.News & News Report | Rankings
    • New York Law Journal | 2015 Verdicts & Settlements | Hall of Fame | Motor Vehicle | Sakkas, Cahn & Weiss, LLP | Top 20 Verdict
    • Million Dollar Advocates Forum
    • Verdict Search's | Top NY Verdicts
    • Certified
    • National Association of Distinguished Counsel | Nation's Top One Percent | NADC
    • 2016 | Litigation Elite - Top 100 Trail Lawyers
    • Martindale-Hubbell | Distinguished | Peer Rated for High Professional Achievement | 2017
    • Who's who Legal | WWL
    • The National Advocates | Top 100 Lawyers
    • America's Top 100 Attorneys | Top 100
    • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trail Lawyers
    • Best Lawyers | 2021
    • Super Lawyers
    • Best Law Firms of America | LifeTime Member
    • Avvo | 10.0 | Superb | Top Attorney Personal Injury
Email Our Attorneys

Have Questions? Get A Free Case Review

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy