How can you have a “public nuisance” when the nuisance itself is virtually eradicated? That must be the question Sherwin Williams (SHW), NL Industires(NL) and the other defendants must be shaking their heads asking themselves.
Jane Genova reports:
“Actually, as LEGAL NEWSLINE’s John O’Brien notes, new cases have been steadily and significantly plummeting over the past 10 years. Ironically, it was about that time that the lead paint public nuisance lawsuit activity began in RI. According to the 2007 statistics recently released from the RI Department of Health, only 1.3 percent of children being tested in the state had in their blood elevated levels of lead. That represents a 22 percent reduction from 2006. Back in 1998, 6.6 percent of children tested had elevated levels of lead in their blood (80% decline).
These figures contradict the plaintiff’s asserting during RI II that the progress on reducing childhood lead poisoning had reached a plateau and would not decline further without intervention. The form that intervention should take, the plaintiff contended, was abatement of lead in every residence where it was still present.”
Genova continues, “O’Brien reports that the RI Attorney General’s office, which put RI I and RI II in play, had no comment. Could this saga be renamed: The Case of the Vanishing Public Nuisance?”
The whole basis for the case in RI was that the decline of lead in children had stopped and billions were needed to further decrease it. Yet, the State’s own numbers illustrate the fallacy of the very argument they based their case on. Let’s also not forget that this point is one of the issues on appeal, that the RI Attorney General withheld these numbers from the initial trial as they contradicted his claims. AG Lynch is facing a contempt charge for his actions.
The litigation in RI has smelled worse than the bay at low tide in summer since the beginning.
What one has to wonder is that with all empirical evidence in direct opposition to the claims the State is making, why hasn’t the case been dropped? What is the RISC even considering? A graceful exit for Judge Silverstein, who did more for the case that the RI AG did by directing the jury’s verdict?
What is happening now is akin to the State claiming they need tougher tax enforcement laws because of declining tax revenues while at the same time ignoring those very revenues are increasing. How can RI in good conscious claim they need billions to fight lead poisoning because it has stopped decline when the reality is the decline, far from stopping is actually still declining dramatically? How?
Of those still being afflicted, hoe many are due to toy recalls in the past year?
Ohio, Missouri and NJ have already decided the issue in court and unlike RI ,seem to be capable of common sense and have the ability to follow the law.
Disclosure (“none” means no position):Long SHW, None
Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.