*
I read an article today that has a stronger bearing on our profession than most people would like to admit.
Seems the state of Rhode Island is now suing just about every major paint manufacturer in the country. They are taking their stance based on the success of the tobacco company lawsuits that the states filed a few years ago.
In fact, some of the same lawyers are representing the state.
They are suing the manufacturers of paint that contained lead (irregardless of the fact that a company’s particular brand may never have been used in their state – how can you prove what brand of paint was on a windowsill)
Now they want billions in compensation from these companies, and they want the companies to pay for removal, cleanup, and disposal of ALL lead paint in their state. The companies would also have to pay to have paint tested (even if it turns out NOT to be lead based). Just think about how many houses/building are in the state that are eligible for testing, and how much it would cost per house/building… and this is just the testing part!
Now if other states follow suit, and make this a class action, then sooner or later the government will file their lawsuit, and you can pretty much bet that paint will either become so outrageously expensive that no one can afford it, or most will close down and go out of business. (Wally Mart will still sell their paint for $12.95 a gallon, and will probably take over the paint market). These companies cannot afford this lawsuit.
What’s next on the list? Drywall because the dust from drywall irritates people? Or maybe fast food because it isn’t as healthy as some would like it to be? This is gonna get way out of hand before it’s all over.
What do you think?
James DuHamel
Replies
*
It will never end. This is the tip of the iceberg.
*I wonder what Andrew's take is on this?How about it Andrew? I would be interested in your perspective knowing your law background AND also your intersests as a contractor. When and if this suit is filed, will it include the GC, designer who specified the type of paint, supplier who sold the paint, painter who applied the paint, etc, etc......?????I wonder what the ratio of lawyers(and law students) to typical citizens is in Rod(ram it) Island?Strawbale, stone, cement and untreated pallet construction is looking better everyday. BTW: Does anyone know the "registered Agent" for the Mother Earth Corporation? We have a subpoena to deliver. I think I just got an infection from the dirt under my fingernails. I've been damaged or so the bottom feeding personal injury attorneys would like me to believe.
*JJ; funnny you should mention that, about the dirt under the fingernail thing. I have just formed a support group for those of us similarly injured. And this is a serious injury, I assure you. Sign us up in your pending class action suit. There are three of us, and we each require several million dollars in comp.As far as I know, that paint was state of the art when it was applied. Basically, if you can go back and nail folks for doing what was state of the art at the time, shouldn't we all stop doing what we are doing NOW? Cause if I'm going to get nailed in the future, for doing what seems best given the current state of knowledge, screw it.
*I'm thinkin' this might be a pretty good time to get certified to test for lead paint! - jb
*I wish I could get more than a few sentences into this kind of thread without seeing my name...You're asking important questions. I don't know the history of people becoming aware that lead in paint was harmful, though I'm sure it went back to the 70's. But as I remember, again without researching it, the mechanism was wrong -- it was thought that children were eating paint chips, when more recently they've found that inhaled dust from windows and doors is the way it is absorbed. So a mfr back then who thought a "don't eat the chips" warning was enough to go on making the stuff might have been acting responsibly. Lead paint was banned around when lead in fuel was too (1979-80 or so?), when studies in my home town of L.A. found significant accumulations of lead in the bones of schoolchildren.The issue in such a lawsuit would be whether the mfrs, contractors, etc. had reason to know they were exposing people to an unreasonable risk of danger. This is product liability lingo -- for example, just because a product is dangerous AND you know it is doesn't mean you're liable for injuries UNLESS you fail to take "reasonable" precautions. A lawnmower can chop off fingers but if you install reasonable guards and put warning stickers on bloody everything you're not liable for the guy who tries to trim his hedge by picking it up (this happened).Before you warm to the "what's next, fatty foods?" argument remember the easy case: asbestos. The mfrs knew in the 30's that it was killing people and didn't do anything about it. I edited a special law review issue we did in school on the asbestos litigation -- concerning the workers who actually processed the stuff and sprayed it on ships and the like -- and believe me the facts of what went on (and still goes on in the never-ending settlement negotiations) are unbelievable. A loaded settlement -- the focus of the law review articles -- that made lawyers and industry but not plaintiffs happy was recently and rightfully reversed by the Supreme Court.A slightly harder case, and only because of Congress' meddling, is the tobacco industry -- did i read yesterday that Phillip Morris just "admitted" that smoking causes cancer? Whew! Does anyone believe they didn't know that years ago? That they didn't perjure themselves when they testified before Congress? That Joe Camel isn't designed for children? (I've smoked Camel Lights occasionally for years and wondered for a long time about the stupid p*nis-faced camel.) Both of these industries made a whole lot of money and it is entirely fair to force them to cough some of it back up (pun intended).The guns are a harder case; if there is evidence they marketed to criminals that's pretty serious. I hear Colt has now dumped the consumer market. But whether a handgun is an unreasonably dangerous product is fascinating -- I mean, the thing is SUPPOSED to be dangerous. A real disaster was the silicone breast implant litigation. As I understand it, no studies supported a connection between the implants and the often serious illnesses. Very emotional, but no proof. Same with EMF. My scientific side can't stand acting without considering the facts.The upshot is that this sort of class litigation has accomplished some important goals that the gov't inexplicably failed to address (hmm, could it be those donations from trade groups?). Why (money) doesn't (money) Congress (money) step (money) in? Look at each of the industries I've mentioned and I'm sure you'll recognize some major campaign contributors or industries from states with prominent representatives in Congress.The class actions are, however, very inefficient and often reward the lawyers more than anyone else. Right in front of me I have a certification form for a class action against my telephone company for misleading cellphone customers like me about how they rounded each minute up or some such. A million subscribers and I might get $1 out of it ... the lawyers will get maybe 1/3 of the TOTAL. This suit wasn't brought by pillaged consumers, but by lawyers looking for that 1/3. (Hard to feel sorry for the phone company, though.)P.S. About the dirt under the fingernails: there is good reason to believe that dirty motor oil or other petroleum products (e.g., roofing goop) left on your skin all the time can cause health problems. I think the labels say this now?And don't go inhaling anything if you can help it. Gypsum dust, sawdust, cement dust, etc. are unheathful -- says so right on the package. With reasonable precautions they're fine. Now, sun block, there's a killer....Always reading and learning...
*Andrew - We all like to think we bring some of our own expertise into these forums. I appreciate the fact that you were willing to spend the time to share b your expertise with us.
*... and I'm glad someone reads it!
*Andrew,We don't read it,but it's nice to know it's there to read if we do want to!good luck,Stephen
*Maybe that drywall dust thing isn't so far fetched, remember some drywall products contained abestos even into the early 70's.Andrew, I got a chuckle out of your class action suit, as I just received one involving Nations Bank now Bank of America. Seems like the might have posted checks in such a way to ensure they could charge more overdraft fees, for a period of time between 93-95 I think
*Well, we don't listen to you either ... but you're there if we need you!!
*Thanks Andrew. I always learn something from your commentary. That's why I posted the request. Jeff
*Politicians and attorneys getting together is always scary. Yes there are good lawyers out there who serve a vital function. But too many see the easy buck and go for it (like many contractors).My state is now investigating the law firms who represented us in the tabacco law suit. Overbilling and such. Seems several were friends and relitives of state reps who hired them. Kind of like Hillary and Rose law firm. Oh well Southern politics.Rick Tuk
*Jimbo- Damn Straight! Lemme' know the phone number of the paint testing licensing agency after you find it!SD
*Nice work with those XRF machines. Better than being a home inspector for keeping your hands clean.
*James,What was the source of the original article??
*Hello Mike, Associated Press ran the article. I saw it in both the Houston Chronicle, and the Beaumont Enterprise. It has since been updated. Now they are listing the individual paint companies (many have been bought out, so the new owners are getting the suit). The suit has been officially filed, and 13 states are now wanting to "sign up", whatever the heck that really means.James DuHamel
*I should note that you HAVE to name every possible defendant when you bring suit, or you'll forever lose the opportunity to sue them. Some defendants will probably get themselves dismissed.
*I did a search at AOL.com at the front page news web center and found several articles. The lawsuit claims the paint manufacturers have known of the problem since 190
*My first job out of college in the late 1960's was as a fire inspector. It was a real eye opener for someone weaned on Popular Science and Scientific American as a kid to see just how primitive some (most) of our manufacturing facilities were. At that time, there were a whole host of one or two person paint mixing facilities, usually housed in an old garage or similar sized building - almost any town of any size had several. Many of these were wiped out when the EPA started clamping down on emissions as most of them just poured and mixed the paint base and pigments in open containers with no emission controls of any kind. (One I remember used what looked like a 50 gallon "cauldron" that the paint was mixed by hand and then was tipped by hand to fill gallon paint cans - yet, when they slapped on the label, the finished can looked as professional as any other.) My soap box:There would be no way that anyone could collect from these guys, so I guess those that have survived will be expected to cover for them. While I certainly believe in accountability, it seems that there are times, such as this, where a large portion of society participated and benefitted (manufacturers, retailers, painters, customers demanding the "whitest white", etc.) and should probably be considered culpable. In such a case sometimes it may be best to just acknowledge that mistakes are made and it is best to just write it off and make sure systems are in place to mitigate the damage and to make sure it doesn't happen again. I could see certain individuals taking action, particularly in egregious recent cases, but in terms of the long term situation, it seems to me that society as a whole is the best institution to absorb the costs of such a long term and wide spread problem as the lead paint situation. However, it seems that it is precisely the institutions that represent society, for political advantage or otherwise, are trying to "reclaim the taxpayers money..."