A few years back there was a landmark case involving “Big Tobacco,” where tobacco companies were held accountable for selling a composite of known poisons with addictive qualities for decades. Recently in Rhode Island, aka the lead paint capital of the world, a similar judgement has come down on the Paint Industry.

Ahhh, yes. The evil, corporate sharks of the cut-throat paint business. Lead paint wasn’t illegal to use until 1978 – about 30 years after most of the homes in Rhode Island were built, and about 30 years prior to the lawsuit. We’re looking at potential torts that may or may not have occurred 60 years ago. In the meantime,a s the NYT reports, lead-poisoning rates among RI youngsters has been steadily declining over the last 20-odd years. Adding salt to the wound, is the fact that no determination was made as to whether any of the co-defendants had actually supplied paint for even a single wall in the State.

I find it suspect that the case was tried by Public Nuisance laws, it’s a long-shot at best. But assuming malfeasance (if it were indeed malfeasance) by the paint companies would be sufficient cause for a public nuisance, shouldn’t the defendants have the chance to answer the allegations? To challenge them openly? In short, shouldn’t the state be required to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that a 65 year old tort is indeed responsible for a persistant public nuisance of epidemic proportions?

It seems only reasonable.

“If you follow this example, beer manufacturers can be sued every time someone gets drunk and does something stupid,” said Paul J. Bottari, a lawyer who has defended landlords and housing authorities in lead-paint lawsuits. “If you claim something was a public nuisance, you can throw statute-of-limitations rules out the door and you don’t even have to prove who made the product.”

Mr Bottari, it doesn’t appear that we’re very far from that beer-drinking-scenario.