From The Columbus Dispatch:

The Rhode Island Supreme Court might have put an end to a Columbus lawsuit intended to hold paint manufacturers financially responsible for cleaning up thousands of homes contaminated with lead paint. …[snip]

“Most everybody pinned their hopes on how Rhode Island moved,” said Columbus City Attorney Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr. “I think it’s fair to say, with Rhode Island’s decision, we’ll have to seriously re-evaluate this case and see if it should continue.”

The city estimates that cleaning up 150,000 lead- contaminated homes could cost $1.7 billion.

“Obviously, this ruling in Rhode Island does not bode well for our legal strategy,” said Dan Williamson, spokesman for Mayor Michael B. Coleman.

From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, an editorial, “Rhode Island court rightly absolves companies that made lead-based paint“:

Fairness required the Rhode Island Supreme Court to overturn the landmark lead-paint nuisance verdict against Cleveland-based Sherwin-Williams Co. and two other companies that used to make lead-based house paint.

Chief Justice Frank Williams expressed regret for “the harm to children in Rhode Island,” but went on to say that “the defendants were not in control of any lead pigment at the time the lead caused harm to children.” That wise decision should persuade Ohio and its cities to shelve their public nuisance suits.

Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch responds with bluster and abuse to the state Supreme Court’s 4-0 ruling throwing out his lawsuit against paint manufacturers. From his statement:

This case was litigated in the Superior Court for more than eight years. Despite the multi-million dollar lead industry-funded defense waged by an army of more than 100 lawyers, my office proved to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury that the three defendants were liable for the public nuisance that their products created in Rhode Island. Those products poisoned our infants and children – and continue to poison our infants and children – while bringing great profits to the companies that made and sold them. Today, the Supreme Court ruled that these defendants do not have to clean up the mess they have made. I find this legally and fundamentally wrong.  As important, I find it impossible to explain to the kids who have been and will continue to be lead poisoned, to the parents and families harmed and suffering as a result, and to everyone trying on their own, and at their own expense, to protect our children from these defendants’ products.

But, then, as the Supreme Court found, the state did not prove the companies made “the mess,” as Lynch puts it. The justice rejected the causal relationship Lynch claimed.

Then there’s Lynch’s use of appeal, “for the children,” as the ultimate good he would substitute for the rule of law. “For the children” has replaced patriotism as the last refuge of the …Well, you know.

It’s the same appeal that Lynch’s contingency-fee attorneys at Motley Rice LLC, the people who really ran the show, made in their news release:

We are very disappointed that the Rhode Island Supreme Court chose to ignore the verdict of a jury of Rhode Island citizens and the judgment of a preeminent trial judge in order to absolve the lead paint companies of any responsibility for contaminating thousands of houses in Rhode Island with a poison that has injured tens of thousands of Rhode Island children.

These are political arguments, not legal arguments. But then, it’s politics, not the law, that drives self-promoting attorneys general to file these kind of suits in the first place.

UPDATE (5:20 p.m.): We had missed this Providence Journal story, which includes comments not reported elsewhere. For example, from the office of U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who as AG filed the suit:

“There is no doubt that lead paint manufactured by these companies caused grave harm to thousands of Rhode Island children,” Whitehouse said. “It has for years been Rhode Island’s worst public health problem for children.”

Sherwin-Williams stopped producing lead-based paint 50 years ago. On point is this comment from the company’s attorney, Charles Moellenberg: “The Supreme Court went out of its way to make it clear that Rhode Island children are not left without a remedy — their remedy is the property owners.”  

To avoid making a public nuisance of ourselves, here’s a list of today’s posts on the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s opinion on the state’s lead paint lawsuit.

• Twisting Public Nuisance Laws
• Finally, for More on the R.I. Ruling, Go Here
• More on Lead Paint, Almost 800 Years Worth
• Our Thoughts Turn to Cleveland, Leadenly
• The NAM’s Statement on the R.I. Lead Paint Ruling
• Statement from the Defendants in R.I. Lead Case
• The NAM’s Involvement in Rhode Island Decision
• R.I. Court Reins In Abuse of Public Nuisance Laws

And again…

• Case summary from the Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Opinion (.pdf)
• Dow-Jones Newswires: “RI High Court Reverses Ruling Against Paint Cos“
• Reuters: “Rhode Island top court overturns lead paint ruling“
• Providence Journal: “Update: Landmark lead-paint judgment overturned

From the National Association of Manufacturers:

NAM CALLS RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT LEAD PAINT REVERSAL A VICTORY FOR MANUFACTURERS AND CONSUMERS

Landmark Ruling Is a Big Loss for Public Nuisance Claims

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 1, 2008 – The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) applauded today’s decision by the Rhode Island Supreme Court to overturn the trial court verdict against lead paint manufacturers.

“The court essentially shut down the use of product-based nuisance claims in Rhode Island,” said NAM President and CEO John Engler. “Today’s verdict preserves predictability and logic within our civil courts and is a victory for manufacturers and consumers. The Court’s decision is similar to decisions by Supreme Courts in Missouri, New Jersey and Illinois and adds to the momentum toward rejecting product-based public nuisance claims,” he said.

“This decision is a testament to applying the rule of law. We would welcome more state and federal judiciaries to follow the lead of these courts in the ever-growing efforts to expand the limits of liability,” he continued.

“The court clearly understands the risks posed when public nuisance claims are used to displace traditional causes of action, such as product liability lawsuits or thoughtful public policy decisions. Today’s decision is a big win for anyone who is concerned with the growing misuse of public nuisance lawsuits. The NAM will continue to actively oppose the distortion of public nuisance theory in other venues and with other products,” Engler concluded.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in this case and noted the court’s statement that it found all amicus briefs helpful in reaching its decision.

From LeadLawsuits.com, a website sponsored by the companies involved in the lead paint litigation, a statement.

“Today’s ruling is a landmark victory for common sense and for responsible companies that did the right thing,” said Charles H. Moellenberg, Jr., an attorney for The Sherwin-Williams Company, speaking on behalf of defendants Sherwin-Williams and Millennium Holdings, Inc. “This case never should have been filed – it was factually wrong and legally flawed. A company should not be held liable when there is no proof that it did anything wrong. It has taken nine years and two juries, but the Supreme Court’s decision today puts public nuisance law in Rhode Island squarely in line with the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions of the United States.”