Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

California Charges Lead Paint Liability After 70 Years

Decades after engaging in activity that was lawful at the time, businesses will face constant uncertainty and a disincentive to operate in California.

California Charges Lead Paint Liability After 70 Years

California Charges Lead Paint Liability After 70 Years

If sellers of a legal product may be held liable for causing a public nuisance, decades after engaging in activity that was lawful at the time, businesses will face constant uncertainty and a disincentive to operate in California.

By Shari Dovale

Lead paint used to be legal, to sell and use. 70 years ago, it was determined that lead paint is dangerous to humans. Beginning in 1951, when Baltimore banned the use of lead pigment in interior paint in Baltimore housing, the country slowly passed laws outlawing it’s use. The Federal government banned consumer uses of lead paint in 1978.

Now, all these decades later, the State of California has decided to hold 3 companies liable for creating a public nuisance due to their promotion of lead paint.

In their infinite, and very progressive wisdom, California courts have ruled in favor of 10 California cities and counties, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, which argued that ConAgra, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams knowingly endangered public health by advertising and selling lead paint.

Pacific Legal Foundation explains:

Prior to 1951, lead paint was lawfully sold and used in the interior of houses. This presented no problem at the time, but, as it ages and deteriorates, and as little children gnaw on windowsills and such while teething, it can become a source of lead poisoning. For this reason, the use of lead paint inside residences was outlawed.

But now, 70 years later, a California appellate court has held in People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. that three companies that lawfully sold lead paint liable for creating a public nuisance. They must pay hundreds of millions of dollars into an “abatement” fund to investigate residential lead paint in the state’s ten most populous counties, and remediate any dangerous conditions found there.

The companies are not liable because they manufactured the paint, or sold it; or because any Californian has established an injury caused by the paint. No, the court found them liable because, in the first half of the Twentieth Century, they promoted the use of then-lawful lead paint.

After the California Supreme Court refused to hear the case, Conagra filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to review and reverse this ruling, which violates principles of due process and retroactively punishes protected First Amendment speech.

 

Sources:

http://www.leadlawsuits.com/history/history-of-the-use-of-lead-paint/

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/06/26/lead-paint-liability-initiative-november-18-ballot/

https://pacificlegal.org/lead-paint-public-nuisance-and-the-first-amendment/

https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/348822-retroactive-tort-liability-and-the-first-amendment

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews

2 Comments on California Charges Lead Paint Liability After 70 Years

  1. As a long suffering California native, I know how the scum in Sacramento think. This shakedown suit was likely concocted as a test case. If it survives the SCOTUS challenge, they’ll be coming after the ammunition industry next, with everything they can throw at it. I sent a link to this article to the NSSF, not sure if their contact form worked. We might want to let 2A advocacy groups (NRA, GOA, etc.) know, just in case it isn’t on their RADAR.

    • They have been aiming to remove lead from ammunition.

      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
      Fish and Wildlife Service
      Migratory Bird Hunting; Application for Approval of Copper-Clad
      Iron Shot as Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting
      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-06-20/html/2012-14956.htm

      Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify types of shot for waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to migratory birds or other wildlife when ingested.
      … If the Tier 1 data review results in a preliminary determination that the candidate material does not pose a significant toxicity hazard to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats,…

Comments are closed.