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 »

Read the Court decision

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 »

Read the Court decision

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 »

'''Products Liability''', ''n.''
  1. A manufacturer's or seller's tort liability for any damages or injuries suffered by a buyer, user or bystander as a result of a defective.
  2. The legal theory by which liability is imposed on the manufacturer or seller of a defective product.
  3. The field of law dealing with this theory.
(''Black's Law Dictionary'' 8th ed., © 2004 West Publishing)
''see also'' [[Liability]]

author: John Gray

Syllabus¹

Legally, the term “nuisance” is traditionally used in three ways: (1) to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others (e.g., indecent conduct, a rubbish heap or a smoking chimney); (2) to describe the harm caused by the before-mentioned activity or condition (e.g., loud noises or objectionable odors); and (3) to describe a legal liability that arises from the combination of the two.²  Read More »