Lead Paint

Here’s hoping that the government lawyers responsible for pursuing the pending public nuisance litigation in Santa Clara v. ARCO et al take a close look at the recent cost award against the state of Rhode Island described in this article.  Read More »

Read the Court Decision

authors: Steven P. Benenson & Borden R. Gillis

Summary Introduction

In in re Lead Paint Litigation, 191 N.J. 405 (2007), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that various governmental entities did not state a viable common law nuisance claim for economic or personal injury damages against the former manufacturers of lead paint and pigment. The Court ruled that: 1) the conduct of land owners that fail to maintain their properties, rather than the remote conduct of the manufacturers of lead pigment paint that sold a lawful and then unregulated consumer product, was the proximate cause of any injury to the public good; 2) the plaintiffs, as public entities, lacked standing to sue for damages; and 3) permitting such claims would defeat the legislative purposes of New Jersey’s Lead Paint Act (“LPA”)¹ and Products Liability Act (“PLA”)², the latter of which is the exclusive remedy for harm caused by a defective product.³

  Read More »