Current Events   A HISTORIC EVENT IN RHODE ISLAND: Jury holds 3 ex-makers of lead paint liable Providence Journal, 2/22/06 PROVIDENCE -- A jury has decided that three former makers of lead paint created a public nuisance that has poisoned thousands of Rhode Island children, and continues to do so. In a highly anticipated verdict announced shortly before noon today, the three companies found responsible are Sherwin-Williams, N-L Industries and Millennium Holdings. The jury found that one of the four companies named in the landmark suit brought by the state -- Atlantic Richfield -- was not responsible. The verdict means the companies that once made lead paint and pigment could be held responsible for millions of dollars in clean-up and mitigation costs -- though the state never put a dollar value on its lawsuit. The jury's decision is also important because it could affect similar lawsuits in other states. The sale of lead paint was banned in 1978 in the United States, after studies showed that it can cause serious health problems in children. But in Rhode Island, which has an old housing stock, lead paint still exists in many homes. In 1999, Rhode Island became the first state to sue the lead paint industry. "This is sweet. I am overjoyed," said the state's former attorney general, Sheldon Whitehouse, who brought the original lawsuit that ended with a hung jury in 2002. Whitehouse, a candidate for Congress, said today's verdict was especially dramatic because the jury first announced the "not responsible" finding for Atlantic Richfield. Current Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch hailed the verdict as historic and said in a statement that the decision would "help make Rhode Island a safer and better place to live." Bonnie Campbell, a spokeswoman for the companies and a former attorney general of Iowa, said, "This is but one step in a lengthy process and there are a number of issues still to be decided by the court." Although the jury said that the three other companies must be held responsible for abatement -- or repairing damages -- they did not award compensatory damages. Because of that, Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein ordered lawyers to report back to court Monday with their arguments on whether punitive damages should be awarded. If Silverstein decides they should, the jury will return Tuesday to begin deliberating what those damages should be. The case went to the six-person jury Monday, Feb. 13, after 15 weeks of trial. The state contended that the four companies created a public nuisance by marketing the lead-paint pigments that helped poison more than 37,000 Rhode Island children during the last 11 years. The state also argued the paints remain on more than 240,000 houses and threaten future harm as they deteriorate. Attorney General Lynch has estimated abatement could cost billions of dollars. The verdicts had an immediate impact on Wall Street. Sherwin Williams' share price dropped more than 15 percent to $44.47 as of about 1:30 p.m. NL Industries fell 5 percent to $13.64. The 2002 trial ended in a hung jury after four days of deliberations. State's lawyers presented historians, doctors and contractors to try to persuade jurors that the companies knew about the hazards and tried to hide them. The paint makers presented no witnesses. In closing arguments, company lawyers insisted that the state didn't prove a case against any of them. They said the state failed to convincingly place any of their paints on Rhode Island buildings and that there is no public nuisance in Rhode Island because childhood blood-lead levels have declined so dramatically. In closing arguments, defendants argued that the entire time they sold lead-based paints it was legal, but Judge Silverstein swept aside that defense. "The fact that the conduct which caused the nuisance is lawful, does not preclude liability," Silverstein said. A large part of the state's evidence focused on an industry group called the Lead Industries Association that heavily promoted the use of lead paint while campaigning to cover up reports of lead-poisoned children. Silverstein reinforced a previous ruling he made that favored the defendants by telling the jury that "mere membership in a trade association is not sufficient to impose liability on any defendant." -- With reports from the Associated Press and Journal staff writers Paul Edward Parker and Peter B. Lord ***************************** Lead-paint protesters disrupt meeting Monday, October 24, 2005 Jesse Tinsley Plain Dealer Reporter (Cleveland) A noisy group of more than 400 activists crashed a staid business meeting of national paint-industry executives Sunday at the Renaissance Cleveland Hotel, demanding accountability for decades of lead paint sales. The National Paint & Coatings Association was caught off guard when members of ACORN - the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - squeezed into the third-floor meeting room on Public Square armed with a half-dozen bullhorns. After raising a racket that put the meeting on hold, the crowd departed when J. Andrew Doyle, the paint association president, agreed to speak with a small group of ACORN leaders. Doyle went to a side room and signed a written agreement to meet in Washington, D.C., with leaders of the protest group within 30 days to listen to their concerns about lead paint. His signature, however, hinged on the condition the ACORN members - who clogged the hotel's lobby - refrain from further disruptions of the paint association's annual meeting. Visibly disturbed, Doyle told the protesters, some of whom traveled from as far away as the nation's capital, that they could have made their point in a better way. Doyle said he was vaguely aware of ACORN, a national community organization of low- and moderate-income families that works on social justice issues such as better housing and health care. Marcel Reid, president of D.C. ACORN, said she and other members were pleased with the turnout and Doyle's agreement to meet with the group's leaders. As it happened, discussion about lead paint was already on the paint association's agenda. After the agreement, ACORN members carrying banners, placards and bullhorns marched from Public Square to a Sherwin-Williams Co. office on nearby Prospect Avenue for a brief protest. Although the office was closed, the activists shouted, "We are ACORN, mighty, mighty ACORN!" and waved banners that said, "They Knew for Decades" about the health problems associated with lead paint. The group claims paint companies continued to sell lead-based paint after learning it posed serious health risks to children, such as lead poisoning. *********** NJ Appeals Court Permits Lawsuit by Cities The Star-Ledger Court renews towns' suit against lead paint makers Thursday, August 18, 2005 BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG Star-Ledger Staff A state appeals court yesterday revived a lawsuit aimed at forcing companies that made lead paint to bear the enormous costs of removing it from the walls of homes and apartments and treating lead-poisoned residents in 22 municipalities and four counties. A Middlesex County judge had dismissed the lawsuit almost three years ago, saying the local governments had overstepped their authority in bringing it. The three-judge appeals panel disagreed and ruled that Newark, the counties of Essex and Union and the other governmental bodies have "inherent police powers" to sue to stop a public nuisance, such as a health threat. Lead poisoning, particularly in children, can cause neurological, developmental and other health problems. Lead paint has been banned in New Jersey since 1971 and nationwide since 1978. Chris Perrucci, a lawyer for seven of the local governments that went to court, said: "We're very pleased that this matter will at least have the opportunity to go to a jury." At trial, he said, the towns will argue that "the paint industry was aware that their product was harmful to small children but did not reveal this known danger to consumers." In that respect, the case is similar to earlier lawsuits against the asbestos and tobacco industries, said Perrucci, whose law firm has offices in Phillipsburg and in Bethlehem, Pa. Bonnie Campbell, a spokeswoman for four of the companies being sued, said yesterday's ruling was "truly a preliminary, procedural step. All it does is send us back to the lower court." She said the defendants have "many procedural options available" before the case would go to trial and will "vigorously defend against plaintiffs' claim." The lawsuit is one of scores that have been filed by governments nationwide. So far, they have had at best modest success. Many were dismissed by trial judges and are "in limbo right now" as appeals courts consider them, according to Brian Gumm, a spokesman for the Alliance for Healthy Homes in Washington, D.C., which tracks such litigation. A lawsuit by Rhode Island against lead paint manufacturers ended in 2002 with a hung jury. Last June, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch dropped DuPont Corp. as a defendant after it agreed to make a "multimillion-dollar contribution" to a nonprofit group that works to protect children from exposure to lead. A retrial of the remaining defendants is scheduled for October, Gumm said. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-2 last month that a Milwaukee teenager can sue lead paint manufacturers even though he cannot identify the company whose paint he claims poisoned him as a child. *********** Jul 15, 2005 Court allows teen to sue lead paint pigment makers for his injuries By JR ROSS Associated Press Writer MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A Milwaukee boy can sue the manufacturers of a lead paint pigment for his injuries even though he cannot prove which ones made the pigment that may have sickened him, a split Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday. It is the first time a state has found manufacturers could be held liable in such a lawsuit, and one of the dissenting judges said it would make Wisconsin "the mecca for lead paint suits." Still, the court's 4-2 ruling allows 15-year-old Steven Thomas to continue with his lawsuit against companies that made the pigment. Thomas claims as a toddler he ingested lead paint at two homes built in 1900 and 1905, leading to permanent mild retardation. Defendants include the Sherwin-Williams Co., ConAgra Grocery Products Co., American Cyanamid Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., NL Industries Inc. and SCM Chemicals Inc.   Thomas's attorney, Peter Earle, said the manufacturers had long known the dangers of the pigment but continued to put the product on the market anyway. "Because they share culpability for creating this hazard to the public, they now have to account for that," Earle said. The court extended the "risk contribution theory" to the manufacturers of white lead carbonate, a pigment once commonly used in lead paint. According to that principle, those who cannot trace their injuries to a specific company can still collect damages if they can prove a product was dangerous, it created their injuries and the defendant negligently produced or marketed it. The court also ruled Thomas could sue the manufacturers even though he already received more than $324,000 from the landlords of the two homes where he believed he was sickened. But it rejected his claims the companies conspired to market the product to the public despite the dangers. Bonnie Campbell, spokeswoman for Atlantic Richfield, Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries and SCM Chemicals' successor Millennium, said the court's decision undermined laws passed by the Wisconsin Legislature making property owners responsible for lead paint hazards. "Those who put children at risk by not maintaining their properties are responsible and should be held accountable," said Campbell, a former Iowa attorney general. Attorneys representing Thomas and the other paint companies did not immediately return calls Friday from The Associated Press seeking comment. In his dissent, Justice Jon Wilcox wrote the decision raises serious concerns about fundamental fairness because it creates the possibility some defendants may be held liable for injuries they did not and could not have caused. He wrote the paint manufacturers "can be held liable for a product they may or may not have produced, which may or may not have caused the plaintiff's injuries, based on conduct that may have occurred over 100 years ago when some of the defendants were not even part of the relevant market." But Justice Louis Butler wrote the manufacturers long knew of the dangers, pointing to a 1904 article in a Sherwin-Williams publication publicizing the hazards. He wrote the record shows at a minimum the manufacturers are culpable for contributing to the creation of risk and injury to the public. The manufacturers "are essentially arguing that their negligent conduct should be excused because they got away with it for too long," Butler wrote. ********** The Lead Poisoning Problem is Not Going Away Any Time Soon > September 13, 2003 New York Times > The Plague of Lead Poisoning The federal goal to eliminate lead poisoning in children by 2010 seemed achievable when it was set in 1991. With bans on leaded gasoline and paint in place, progress has been made - the number of cases detected has fallen by 50 percent. Still, hundreds of thousands of small children, most of them black, Hispanic and Asian, face one of the most preventable environmental hazards in the nation by simply breathing inside their homes. > Tests have shown that more than 400,000 children 1 to 5 years old have blood  lead levels above that considered toxic by the Centers for Disease Control - and that number would be much greater if the index was lowered, as many experts wish, and if more children were regularly tested. Most cases occur in large and mid-size cities where formerly good housing is deteriorating. When lead paint peels or is improperly removed, or even when it is scraped as a window is opened, it unleashes a dust fine enough to be both ubiquitous and undetected as children crawl on it and touch it. It takes very little ingested lead to damage the still-forming brains and nerves of children or fetuses, and such damage can lead to permanent and debilitating health and learning problems, like lower IQ's and retardation, and behavioral problems. > Where testing has been done, patterns emerge. In Chicago, one in three children tested positive for lead poisoning, mainly in poorer neighborhoods, causing the city to push for increased testing and education. Similar hot spots were found in Providence, Philadelphia and St. Louis. But for sheer density of risk, nothing compares with New York City because of its huge stock of older homes and a lead belt stretching across underserved poor, minority and immigrant communities in Brooklyn and Queens. New York was years ahead of the federal government in outlawing lead paint in 1960. But the city faltered four years ago, passing a law that failed to address the danger of lead dust. That law was struck down on a technicality in the courts this summer, leaving a void on an urgent issue. > A bill before the New York City Council - sponsored by Bill Perkins, who represents parts of Harlem and the Upper East Side - would go a long way to protect those most vulnerable by clearly labeling lead dust a health hazard.  It also corrects a lapse in the previous law, which shielded landlords from liability. The new law would place the burden of fixing lead problems on building owners, who would have to act in a timely way, using trained workers. City officials say the bill is too expensive and goes too far, including its provision to increase the upper age range of monitored children to age 7, from age 6. > Gifford Miller, the Council speaker, has been criticized for not moving more quickly on the legislation, but he now appears to agree with much of what it seeks to accomplish and has offered improvements, like adding a focus on primary prevention. In New York's current fiscal squeeze, City Hall is right to worry about costs, but the mayor's economists also need to consider the long term. Lead poisoning does not typically kill. Instead it leaves a lifetime of expensive concerns - like special schooling and medical care - that society is left to absorb. This is a problem with a clear solution if those in government do the right thing now, while the goal is in sight. *********************************** Lead Paint Industry Gets "Dirty Dozen Award" from Maine Community Group for Poisoning Children MAINE LEAD ACTION PROJECT P.O. Box 1218 Portland, ME 04104 (207) 871-7905 FAX: (207) 871.7905 www.maineleadaction.org leadsafe@gwi.net "Caring For Maine Children, One House at a Time" For Immediate Release April 8, 2003 Contact: Maggie Drummond Maine Toxics Action Center 871-1810 Susan Thornfeldt Maine Lead Action Project 838-9128 NEWS RELEASE Dirty Dozen Award "honors" Lead Paint Industry for #1 children's environmental health problem Group warns homeowners, landlords, contactors and parents of continued danger Portland - Local advocates gathered today with the Maine Toxics Action Center at the site where two children contracted lead poisoning to "honor" the Lead Paint Industry for their role in creating the #1 children's environmental health threat in Maine and the country. The awards highlight twelve facilities, sites or products that pose a threat to public health, the environment and/or worker health & safety. In addition, the awards highlight situations where there has been a lack of action on part of state and local agencies, officials or corporations to effectively remedy the problem. "The Lead Paint Industry fully deserves this award for knowingly marketing a product they knew was dangerous," said Susan Thornfeldt, Director of the Maine Lead Action Project whose two children suffered from lead poisoning. "They have for decades blamed 'ineducable parents' and 'negligent landlords' for the epidemic of childhood lead poisoning in America and have yet to offer any accountable or tangible solution to help end this pervasive public health problem." Young children exposed to small amounts of lead, a powerful neurotoxin, may be at an increased risk of developing permanent learning disabilities, reduced concentration and attentiveness and behavior problems which may persist and adversely affect the child's chance for success in school and life. Maine children are at particularly high risk for lead poisoning due to our older housing stock, renovation activity and occupational exposure. "When my daughters were lead poisoned, I dealt with a landlord who tried to both bribe and bully me to stop me from getting them tested and treated; but I believe that he is the exception. Most landlords want to be conscientious. Placing the responsibility where it belongs, with companies like Sherman Williams and Dutch Boy, is a giant step towards providing greater resources to help landlords and homeowners maintain the integrity of their buildings, and thus prevent the continued poisoning of our children.", said Heather Curtis of the Portland Tenants Union. "The Dirty Dozen Awards 'honor' twelve toxic threats, like this one, that can be found right in our own homes and backyards," said Maggie Drummond, Maine State Director of Toxics Action Center. "Parents and landlords should be aware of the dangers that lead poses to our children so that we can take the proper precautions to protect their health." ### NEWS ADVISORY April 7, 2003 Dirty Dozen Award "honors" the Lead Paint Industry for their role in creating the #1 Children's Environmental Health Problem Group warns Maine landlords, homeowners, contractors and parents of the continued dangers WHAT:         MaineToxics Action Center will present it's annual "Dirty Dozen" award to the Lead Paint Industry who was nominated by the Maine Lead Action Project, a state-wide nonprofit organization. The list of the "honorees" includes a dozen sites of facilities that pose a threat to public health, the environment or worker health & safety, and where there has been lack of action on the part of state or local officials, agencies and corporations to correct the problem. WHEN:     Tuesday, April 8, 2003; 10:00 AM WHO:      Susan Thornfeldt, Maine Lead Action Project                    Heather Curtis, Portland Tenants Union                    Mike Belliveau, Environmental Strategy Center                    Maggie Drummond, Toxics Action Center INVITED:   Andrew Ketterer, Former Maine Attorney General and current lobbyist for the Lead Paint Industry WHERE:   The residence of Susan Thornfeldt and Greg Dasch                130 Highland Street, Portland Maine VISUALS:  Picket fence with lead industry propaganda, Dutch Boy with paint can 'whitewashing' the well documented medical/scientific facts about childhood lead poisoning. CONTACT: Maggie Drummond                 Toxics Action Center, 207-871-1810                 Susan Thornfeldt                 Maine Lead Action Project                 207-838-9128                 207-871-7905 ### ******************************* SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. ATTEMPTS TO SPRUCE UP ITS IMAGE Below is a memo from the Alliance to End Chilhood Lead Poisoning regarding a new effort by the paint company to improve its public relations. TO:  Lead Poisoning Prevention Advocates FR:  Eileen Quinn and Ralph Scott, AECLP RE:  Sherwin Williams' Outreach to City Governments Sherwin Williams Paint Company is talking to some city governments about their ideas for a "lead-safe marketplace."  The central feature of the plan is a discount price on Sherwin William paints for lead abatement projects, which will be of very limited value.  The Detroit Free Press wrote about the company's efforts last week: http://www.freep.com/news/locway/deal24_200302 24.htm.  We also heard that they are proposing a similar program to Minneapolis. We're writing to encourage you to find out if Sherwin Williams is in discussions with your city government, to make sure city officials do not make a bad deal, and to help ensure that any deal is not oversold to the public and the press. Please try to find out as much as you can about the specifics of the deal.  Help city officials appreciate that any deal will be used by the company as a public relations bonanza. A few key points that might be worth using in your discussions with city officials: - Sherwin Williams is only doing this because of the mounting pressure they feel from the litigation around the country.  (FYI, the Rhode Island suit is likely to be retried this year). - This program is a drop in the ocean compared to what's needed.  Discounted paint and other materials will have little, if any, impact on improving safety in [your city's] housing containing lead-based paint.  Make sure that city officials understand that paint and materials are a minimal percentage of the cost of making housing lead-safe. - Truly solving this problem requires industry to take substantial responsibility for providing resources. There are simply not enough public funds to solve this problem, especially now that government budgets are so constrained.  Industry should pay its fair share and that means serious dollars for solutions, not just some discounts on supplies. - Governments and paint industry and property owners all have to put more dollars on the table for removing lead hazards.  While taxpayers and property owners are already footing a great deal of the bill, industry continues to avoid responsibility. - No deal should be made that forecloses a government's option to pursue legal action against Sherwin Williams or any of the companies that manufactured lead-based paint. If city officials are intent on making a deal with the company, no doubt they will try to make it sound like a big win for the city. You can use similar messages in outreach to reporters to help the press understand the company's self-interest and the limitations of the new program.  By providing the details about the size of the problem contrasted with the scale of the company's offer, you can help set the record straight. Please share with us whatever you learn about Sherwin Williams having discussions in your city and how city officials are responding to the company's overtures.  If we can provide additional information or assistance, please let us know. ******************************** Historians say paint makers knew about poisonings Two historians said that in spite of this week's mistrial, the state should continue to try to hold paint manufacturers responsible for cleaning up houses containing lead paint. 10/31/2002 BY PETER B. LORD Journal Environment Writer (Providence Journal) PROVIDENCE -- For years, spokesmen for the paint industry have said they didn't know lead paint was harmful to children and when they discovered it was, they took it off the market. But two historians speaking here yesterday say that just isn't so. In the 1920s, medical journals around the country ran stories on lead-poisoned children, say historians Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner. During that same period, the industry launched a decades-long marketing campaign that portrayed lead as sanitary and healthful for children. "The attempt to sell lead, combined with the medical literature about its dangers, reported in internal company memos, starts to give you an idea of who is responsible for a huge American tragedy," Rosner said. "And this tragedy will stay with us as long as there is lead on the walls." Markowitz, a professor of history at John Jay College, and Rosner, a professor of history and public health at Columbia University, published a book last month about pollution caused by the vinyl chloride and lead industries. The lead section was based on internal company memos, meeting minutes and reports that were subpoenaed for a New York lawsuit against the industry. Markowitz and Rosner said lawyers invited them to study the documents and to prepare an affidavit describing what they learned. That research lead to the book. The two historians spoke at Brown University just a day after Superior Court Judge Michael A. Silverstein declared a mistrial in Rhode Island's landmark lawsuit seeking damages from the paint industry to pay for cleaning up thousands of Rhode Island homes treated with lead paint. The mistrial occurred when the jury reported it could not reach a unanimous verdict. It split, with four votes for the companies and two for the state. Markowitz and Rosner have been following the trial by reading stories on The Providence Journal's Web site and have been deposed as witnesses for the state if the trial moves on to the liability phase. "When we got the news last night about the trial, we went into a profound funk," Rosner said. "This is such a critical issue I hope the state pursues it. This is a groundbreaking principle of holding companies accountable for cleaning up the country they polluted." Leaders of local lead-poisoning advocacy groups and Robert McConnell, one of the lawyers who helped the state try its case, attended the talk. McConnell said the state's legal team would meet soon to decide what strategy to pursue in a new trial. Both sides also plan to file briefs asking Silverstein to grant them a verdict from the bench. Gregg Perry, a spokesman for the paint companies, said yesterday there were no other developments following Tuesday's mistrial. Asked whether the companies had a response to Rosner and Markowitz's accusations, Tim Hardy, a lawyer for NL Industries, a defendant in the Rhode Island trial, said the two historians have taken information out of context in writing their history of lead paint. Historians hired by the industry have looked at the same materials, he said, and concluded that widespread occurrences of childhood lead poisoning weren't generally known until the 1940s. Before that, he said, it was considered largely a problem for painters. "Though it was known that painters doing a lot of sanding were at risk, that's a very different issue from whether children who were in a house were at risk," Hardy said. Hardy said that at some point all of the historians probably will be testifying before a jury. Markowitz said the industry has never accepted responsibility for lead poisonings. First it blamed children who had the bad habit of eating things off the floor. Then the industry blamed what its memos described as "nearly ineducable parents" who don't look after their children properly. Now the industry blames landlords, he said. "They see this as a public-relations problem," Markowitz said. "How do they market lead? They've never treated it as a public-health problem." Rosner said it was known in the 1920s that a child would die if he or she consumed the amount of lead paint covering a 1 1/2-inch-square of wall. Yet if you followed the industry's directions for mixing and applying lead paint, you would cover a large room with 200 pounds of lead, he said. Physicians in Baltimore started writing about lead-poisoned children in 1914, Rosner said. European countries banned it because painters were getting poisoned, but Rosner said the American industry increased its marketing efforts. An article in 1924 described children living in a "lead world." National Lead won marketing awards for its Dutch Boy campaign which associated lead paint with a clean, healthy life for children, Rosner said. Minutes of industry meetings in 1930 talked about how to respond to negative news stories about lead paint. In 1938, Rosner said, other pigments started competing with lead, so the lead industry launched an intensive 14-year marketing campaign. Rosner displayed industry memos that talked about solving the problem by getting rid of slums and educating uninformed parents. "You read enough of these documents and it's very upsetting," Rosner said. ****************************** Bush Administration Cozies up to Lead Industry (again) Recently (October 2000), Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson appointed new members to the department's childhood lead poisoning advisory board.  Until now, such members have been independent experts recommended by the department's staff.  However, this time Secretary Thompson decided to ignore his staff's advice and selected several people who work directly for the lead industry.  You may remember that President Bush selected as his Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton who was a senior attorney for a law firm that counted NL Industries (formerly of Dutch Boy Paint) as one of its clients. Among his appointees for the lead poisoning  advisory committee are:   Dr. William Banner is a witness for the lead industry in the Rhode Island trial against lead paint manufacturers.  In his deposition, he testified that blood lead levels between 70 and 100 do not pose a risk to children's health.  Dr. Joyce Tsuji is a consultant whose corporate clients include ASARCO, DuPont, and King & Spaulding, a law firm representing several lead companies.  She testified for industry in a class action lawsuit disputing the need for medical monitoring in the vicinity of a lead smelter.  Dr. Kimberly Thompson is affiliated with the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis whose funders include 2 defendants in the Rhode Island case and 22 other companies that have released lead in the environment. Rep. Edward Markey has written a report on this incident and has co-authored a letter to Pres. Bush objecting to this latest case of the foxes guarding  the hens. ******************************************************** Chicago sues lead paint companies (finally) By LIZ AUSTIN Associated Press Writer September 5, 2002, 7:51 PM EDT CHICAGO -- The city of Chicago sued makers of lead paint Thursday, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for removing the paint from homes and caring for poisoned children. The public nuisance lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. City attorney Mara Georges called on the companies to contribute their share to the cleanup and treatment efforts. "All we're saying here is that it's time that the taxpayers don't bear the burden of having to abate this nuisance," Georges said. "Instead, the people that are responsible for having created the nuisance should come in and fund the abatement program." The defendants include Sherwin-Williams Co., E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and The Glidden Company. Bonnie Campbell, an attorney representing many of the defendants, said the lawsuit is a waste of the city's time and resources. She said the paint itself is safe and only becomes dangerous when it is not properly maintained. "Litigation won't help a single child," Campbell said. "Litigation will not solve the problems that come from poorly maintained housing." Anne Evans, director of childhood lead poisoning for the city's health department, said Chicago has the largest number of children with lead poisoning of any city in the country. More than 12,000 Chicago children were diagnosed with lead poisoning last year, she said. She said the department spends $4 million a year to diagnose and treat lead poisoning and to test for lead in homes. In addition to asking the defendants to pay for treatment and cleanup, the lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and reimbursement for legal expenses. No dollar figure was given. Lead paint has been banned in Chicago since 1972 and nationwide since 1978, after studies showed that particles from chipped paint were poisoning children. Lead poisoning causes developmental disabilities and behavioral problems. Chicago has high rates of poisoning because up to one million houses in the city were built before lead paint was banned, Evans said. The other named defendants in the lawsuit are N.L. Industries, Inc., American Cyanamid Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., BP Corporation North America Inc., BP America Inc., Millennium Chemicals Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, The O'Brien Corp. and the Chicago Paint and Coatings Association. Chicago's lawsuit was filed a day after a landmark trial against eight former lead paint manufacturers opened in Rhode Island. The first state to sue the paint companies, Rhode Island also claims the manufacturers caused a public nuisance. Cities such as San Francisco, Milwaukee, New York and Newark, N.J., also have filed lawsuits. The paint companies have won dozens of similar lawsuits filed by individuals, cities and counties. Chicago health department employees on Thursday passed out information on lead poisoning to parents at the Uptown Health Center. Jonnika Lyons recently moved to Chicago with her 2-year-old and 6-month-old daughters. She said she had never known about lead poisoning and did not know if her apartment had been tested for lead. "It's something that I'll go back to my apartment complex and ask them about," Lyons said. ***************************************   RHODE ISLAND TRIAL BEGINS! 09/01/2002 BY PETER LORD Journal Environment Writer Lead paint trial will command national attention Atty. Gen. Sheldon Whitehouse is seeking to hold eight companies accountable for manufacturing or selling lead-based paints decades ago. PROVIDENCE -- So many children have been lead-poisoned here that Providence has come to be known as the lead-paint capital of the United States. On Wednesday, the title will take on a new meaning as the state goes to trial with a lawsuit that will be watched around the nation. Atty. Gen. Sheldon Whitehouse is seeking to hold eight corporations accountable for manufacturing or selling the lead-based paints decades ago that have been poisoning children here and around the country for years. He wants a six-person jury to declare the lead-based paints a public nuisance, and then go on to other proceedings to assign liability and damages. This is the first time a state has sued to have paint declared a public nuisance -- creating a condition that unreasonably interferes with the health, safety and comfort of the community. Dozens of suits have been filed by individuals and communities against the paint companies and all have failed. This is also the first time a state has joined forces with a major class-action litigator -- in this case the law firm of Ness Motley, the South Carolina litigators who have won huge settlements from the asbestos and tobacco industries. THE STAKES in the lead paint trial are enormous. Whitehouse says if he wins the case against the eight companies, he could demand money to end what health experts say is the number-one environmental health problem facing Rhode Island's children. But one financial analyst has said that the consequences for the industry could be "catastrophic." And the state's bankers and Realtors have warned that if all 330,000 houses suspected of being coated with lead paint are declared public nuisances, it could "prove disastrous for owners of property, lenders and mortgage bankers." With so much at stake, preparations for the trial have proceeded on a grand scale. The two sides have assembled enough lawyers to fill a city bus. Many are nationally recognized litigators. To accomodate them, Judge Michael A. Silverstein reserved Courtroom 11, Superior Court's largest hearing room and the scene of many past showcase trials. The paint companies have filed motions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to try to sidetrack the case. The two sides have listed more than 60 witnesses, including dozens of doctors and scientists and most of the nation's top researchers of lead poisoning. The paint companies have already subpoenaed more than 2 million pages of documents and deposed about 130 potential witnesses. All that discovery will be boiled down to 8 to 10 weeks of testimony before six jurors and six alternates. When it's over, the jury will be asked to address one not so simple question: Is lead paint a public nuisance? Yes. Or no. LAWYERS WILL portray two dramatically different pictures of typical Rhode Island homes. "We will show that thousands of children have been poisoned and we will show the vector is the paint," Whitehouse said in an interview last week. "We'll use a lot of expert witnesses and they will show it takes very little lead to poison," Whitehouse added. "We're not doing this house by house or child by child. The question is whether society collectively has been harmed." The state's lawyers will argue that hundreds of thousands of houses are covered with lead-based paints that left 2,832 young Rhode Island children with signs of lead poisoning last year. The poisoning rate in Rhode Island is more than twice the national average, prompting the state to require blood tests of every child under the age of 6. The explanation for Rhode Island's high rate is that the state has so many older homes built before lead paint was banned in 1978. Also, many urban homes are poorly maintained. Further, critics complain that city officials have been lax enforcing building codes. At Whitehouse's prompting, the case will be tried in phases to help simplify issues for jurors. The first phase will be to determine whether a public nuisance exists. If the jury decides it does, Whitehouse would like to move on to determining who is liable, what the damages should be, and whether other parties should be sued. The paint companies insist landlords are the real culprits. Silverstein has said he will wait for the finish of this first trial before deciding how to proceed. Each side has selected three lawyers to argue its case. The state's primary lawyer is Leonard DeCof, 78, the dean of the state's personal injury lawyers, recognized nationally for his litigation skills. A graduate of Yale with a law degree from Harvard, DeCof was retained a decade ago by Whitehouse's mentor, Gov. Bruce Sundlun, to recover millions of dollars in damages from accounting firms, insurance companies and credit union officials after the collapse of the state's credit unions. Linn F. Freedman, 41, deputy chief of the attorney general's civil division, has argued most of the pretrial motions for the state. Originally from New Orleans, she earned her law degree from Loyola. New to the table is Jack McConnell, 44, a partner in Ness Motley's Rhode Island office and state Democratic Party treasurer. A graduate of Brown University and Case Western Reserve University School of Law, McConnell was one of the lawyers for Ness Motley who negotiated the $240-billion tobacco settlement. All three will take turns questionning witnesses, Whitehouse said. In an interview last week, Freedman and DeCof declined to go into specifics of their case. But Freedman said no other lawsuit against paint companies has advanced this far. JOHN TARANTINO, a lawyer for the paint companies, points to his own family history to argue against the state's case. Tarantino, 48, a graduate of Dartmouth College and Boston University Law School, is president of the Providence law firm of Adler Pollock & Sheehan. During an interview in his firm's conference room on the 23rd floor of the former Hospital Trust building, his back is turned to the windows overlooking the State House, Providence Place Mall and the Federal Hill neighborhood where he was raised. "My grandparents came here with nothing. Zero," Tarantino said. "They ran competing fruit stands. My parents weren't supposed to even talk to each other."