State v. Lead Industries Association

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2008 · Torts

TortsPublic nuisancepublic nuisancepublic rightcontrolabatementRule 12(b)(6)lead paint

Facts

The state alleged that defendants or their predecessors manufactured, promoted, distributed, and sold lead pigment for use in residential paint despite knowing of its hazards, and sought abatement of the cumulative presence of lead pigment in Rhode Island buildings. The complaint asserted that defendants created an environmental hazard that unreasonably interfered with the health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience of Rhode Island residents. At trial, the jury found that the cumulative presence of lead pigment in paints and coatings on buildings throughout the state constituted a public nuisance and found Millennium, NL, and Sherwin-Williams liable. The defendants, however, were sued as former manufacturers or successors, not as parties controlling the lead pigment in the buildings when children were harmed.

Issue

Whether the state stated a valid public nuisance claim against former lead pigment manufacturers based on the cumulative presence of lead pigment in Rhode Island buildings. More specifically, the question was whether the complaint could allege facts showing interference with a public right and control by defendants over the lead pigment at the time the harm occurred.

Rule

Under Rhode Island law, public nuisance requires: (1) an unreasonable interference; (2) with a right common to the general public; (3) by a person or persons with control over the instrumentality alleged to have created the nuisance when the damage occurred; and (4) causation. A public right is an indivisible resource shared by the public at large, such as air, water, or public rights of way, and is not merely an aggregation of many private injuries.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The attorney general of Ohio sues BrightCoat Minerals, a former manufacturer of a fireplace sealant sold nationwide in the 1960s. The complaint alleges that aging sealant inside thousands of privately owned homes in Cleveland now releases toxic dust that harms residents, and seeks statewide abatement from the manufacturer.

Assuming the manufacturer no longer owns, possesses, or manages any affected homes, which is the strongest basis for dismissing the public nuisance claim?

Explanation. Public nuisance requires interference with a public right and control over the nuisance-causing instrumentality when the damage occurs. A claimed right to be free from toxic exposure inside private homes is not a public right merely because many people are affected; it is a collection of private injuries. The claim also fails because the former manufacturer did not control the instrumentality at the time of injury.