Lead Paint Lawsuits
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 By David Owsiany
A few weeks ago, I wrote a Buckeye Institute Viewpoint on Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray’s decision to dismiss the state’s public nuisance lawsuit against paint manufacturers. Former Ohio AG Marc Dann brought the lawsuit in 2007 seeking to force the paint manufacturers to pay for the costs of cleaning up thousands of buildings that had been neglected for decades. The state claimed that the paint manufacturers were responsible for creating a public nuisance by manufacturing and selling lead-based paint more than 40 years ago.
Cordray’s decision to dismiss the state’s case sends the right message. While the attorney general’s office is committed to protecting consumers, it will not misuse legal doctrines and waste taxpayer dollars on lawsuits the state is unlikely to win. Moreover, in the current economic climate, Ohio’s businesses need to know they will not be hauled into court and have to spend millions of dollars defending against government-sponsored litigation involving legal products they produced several decades ago.”
The Federalist Society just published a special issue of the State Court Docket Watch dedicated to lead paint litigation. Included in the publication is new article I wrote discussing the Ohio lead paint litigation and placing it in the context of a disturbing trend of government-sponsored public nuisance litigation against manufacturers. It is unclear whether Cordray’s decision to dismiss the lead paint lawsuit is a clean break with this trend or just a reflection of the reality that the state’s case was unlikely to succeed. Regardless, Cordray’s decision to dismiss Ohio’s lead paint case is a hopeful sign for those who are concerned about overzealous use of government-sponsored litigation.
Tags: lead paint
