You asked for information about legislation in Rhode Island and other states making paint manufacturers responsible for lead paint problems.

We could find no legislation enacted in Rhode Island or elsewhere that makes paint manufacturers responsible for problems associated with lead paint. Legislation was introduced in Maryland in 2000 and in Massachusetts in 2000 and 2001 to allow the use of "market share liability" theory in lead paint litigation. None were enacted. As applied to lead paint, the market share theory, which arose in the 1980s in response to the difficulty in identifying manufacturers of a drug (DES) linked to uterine cancer, holds that paint manufacturers can be held liable for problems associated with lead paint even if the specific company that made the paint in a given case cannot be determined. It allows a court to apportion damages based on each manufacturer's market share. The failed Massachusetts bills also authorized the attorney general to sue lead pigment manufacturers for government costs alleged to be related to lead paint.

In 1999, Rhode Island's attorney general Sheldon Whitehouse filed a civil suit against eight paint manufacturers and the industry's trade association alleging that they marketed and sold lead-based paint knowing that it was toxic. This is the only such suit filed by a state. Several cities (e. g. Milwaukee, San Francisco, Newark) and counties have filed similar suits.

Rhode Island sought (1) compensation for lead-poisoning-related health, education, and abatement costs; (2) funding for a lead-poisoning public education campaign and a detection and screening program; (3) punitive damages; (4) an order for the defendants to detect and abate lead in all residences, schools, hospitals, and public and private buildings accessible to children; and (5) an order for other declaratory or injunctive relief to assure the state has "an effective remedy" for lead poisoning problems. Its suit was based on 10 different claims, including public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, unfair trade practice, and fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation.

In April 2001, the trial court dismissed the product liability and some unfair trade practice and other claims. It also rejected the state's attempt to recover special education expenses. The court allowed the state to pursue its claims for public nuisance, unjust enrichment, some unfair trade practices, conspiracy, and damages to state-owned property. In February 2002, the court granted Attorney General Whitehouse's request to split the trial into phases with the first phase focusing on the claim that lead paint in public and private buildings constitutes a public nuisance. The case is expected to go to trial this summer.

SS: eh