About UsAnalysis of the New Jersey Supreme Court Decision in "In Re Lead Paint Litigation"
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
State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association
author: Thomas R. Bender
Summary Introduction
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that the State of Rhode Island “cannot allege” facts sufficient to state a claim for common law public nuisance against lead pigment manufacturers. It based its decision on two basic factors: 1) although the manufacturers placed lead pigment into the stream of commerce, they did not control it at the time it harmed the children; and 2) that harm did not constitute an interference with a public right for purposes of a common law public nuisance. Read More »
State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association
author: Thomas R. Bender
Summary Introduction
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that the State of Rhode Island “cannot allege” facts sufficient to state a claim for common law public nuisance against lead pigment manufacturers. It based its decision on two basic factors: 1) although the manufacturers placed lead pigment into the stream of commerce, they did not control it at the time it harmed the children; and 2) that harm did not constitute an interference with a public right for purposes of a common law public nuisance. Read More »
Public Nuisance: Defining the Tort
author: Richard Faulk
Syllabus1
The classic black-letter definition of a public nuisance is "an act or omission which obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage in the exercise of rights common to all."2 As discussed in the last module, the concept of public nuisance is poorly understood and has been the subject of heated debate for more than a century. Much of this current confusion can be traced to the Restatement (Second) of Torts Read More »
Web Clips
Tell others about Nuisance Law.com! Below is a web clip featuring a quote from the recent Supreme Court of Rhode Island decision for you to post on your site or blog. It links back to NuisanceLaw.com to make sharing easy.
