After getting thrown out of court pretty much everywhere else, trial lawyers suing companies that long ago manufactured lead paints and pigments may have finally achieved their long-sought breakthrough. They are indebted for this benefaction to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, within days of the same court’s baldly activist decision (PoL Jul. 14) to strike down the state legislature’s limits on medical malpractice awards. By a 4-2 margin, the court agreed to apply the theory of market-share liability — widely rejected by courts except in the context of suits over the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) — to hold liable any and all companies which made paints and pigments sold in Wisconsin, regardless of whether a plaintiff claiming injury can demonstrate whose product he or she was exposed to. The court did not apply any statute of limitations and impatiently brushed aside defendants’ objections that the conduct being sued over took place more than a century ago — the houses in which the teenage plaintiff had been exposed to lead paint were built in 1900 and 1905 — and was lawful according to the standards of that time. “It will be nearly impossible for paint companies to defend themselves or, frankly, for plaintiffs to lose” under the newly announced standard, predicts dissenting justice David Prosser. If he’s right, expect a gold rush by client-chasing lawyers in Wisconsin. (J.R. Ross, “Court Allows Teen to Sue Lead Paint Pigment Makers for Injuries”, AP/Law.com, Jul. 18). For more on paint litigation, see this set of links, Dec. 15, 2003, Jul. 2, 2005, etc.
Comments are closed.