Landmark Lead Paint Abatement Case Decided In California

In a landmark lead paint liability case, the Superior Court of California has held three of five paint companies liable for public nuisance. The court ordered them to clean up lead paint in California residences painted before 1978, at a total cost of $1.15 billion. The use of lead in interior residential paint was permitted until after 1978, i.e. the manufacture and sale of lead paint was legal when these homes were painted. See People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657. The court concluded that lead paint in older homes is a public nuisance today, because it still poses a serious health risk to thousands of children in tens of thousands of homes. Three of the paint companies did much more than merely manufacture a legal, if risky, product, back in the 1960s and 1970s. They actively promoted the use of lead paint for interior use, knowing it was hazardous to children. As one of the paint company's internal publications stated over 100 years ago, in 1900, "It is also familiarly known that white lead is a deadly cumulative poison, while zinc white is innocuous. It is true, therefore, that any paint is poisonous in proportion to the percentage of lead contained in it." This is the distinguishing, "far more egregious" factor that justifies retrospective cleanup liability, unlike a conventional product liability /negligence case. Could such a decision happen here? It would be much harder, but it is possible, especially now that the California plaintiffs have dug out all the evidence... Here is the text of the decision:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10

E-FILED

Jan 7, 2014 4:06 PM

David H. Yamasaki

Chief Executive Officer/Clerk Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

Case #1-00-CV-788657 Filing #G-59619

By R. Walker, Deputy

11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 12 Plaintiff,

13 vs. 14 15 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, CONAGRA GROCERY PRODUCTS 16 COMPANY, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NL INDUSTRIES, INC., 17 and THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, 18

Defendants.

19 20 21

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 1-00-CV-788657

STATEMENT OF DECISION

People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. i Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara Case No. 1-00-CV-788657 Statement of Decision

E-FILED: Jan 7, 2014 4:06 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-00-CV-788657 Filing #G-59619 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

I. THE PARTIES................................................................................................................... 1

3 A. Plaintiff and Cross-defendants............................................................................ 1

4 B. Defendants............................................................................................................. 2

3. ARCO, ConAgra, and successor liability........................................................... 3

   5

4. Decision on successor liability of ARCO and ConAgra................................... 6

   6 II. PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RELEVANT AUTHORITIES............... 6

   7 III. TRIAL................................................................................................................................. 9

   8 IV. THRESHOLD FINDINGS............................................................................................. 10

   V. PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL AND EVIDENTIARY POSITIONS......................................... 11

   9

1. Legal standards.................................................................................................... 11

   10 B. Defendants' Knowledge..................................................................................... 12

   11 C. Harm from Lead is Well-Documented.............................................................. 15

   12 D. The Inevitable Deterioration of Lead Paint is Not Disputed........................... 18

5. Young Children are at Greatest Risk............................................................... 18

   13

6. Experts, Federal Agencies, Physician Associations, and the Public

   14 Entities Agree That Lead Paint Is the Primary Source of Lead

   Exposure for Young Children Living In Pre-1978 Housing............................. 19

   15 G. Lead Paint is Prevalent in the Jurisdictions.................................................... 20

   16 H. The Continuing Effect of Lead Paint................................................................ 21

   17 I. Defendants' Manufacturing of Lead Pigments for Use in House Paints

   and as Members of Trade Associations............................................................ 22

   18 J. Role of the Trade Associations.......................................................................... 23

   19 K. Knowledge of the Defendants - Generally....................................................... 25

   L. Knowledge of the Individual Defendants......................................................... 26

   20

   1. ARCO....................................................................................................... 26 21

   2. ConAgra................................................................................................... 27 22 3. DuPont...................................................................................................... 28 23 4. NL.............................................................................................................. 29 5. SW............................................................................................................. 30 24

13. Causation............................................................................................................. 31 25 N. Defendants Promoted and Sold Lead Pigment and/Or Lead Paint in

    26 the Jurisdictions.................................................................................................. 32

15. Defendants promoted lead paint even though alternatives were

    27 available............................................................................................................... 43

    28 VI. SUMMARY OF THE DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS............................................... 43

    VII. INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES............................................................. 45

    People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. i Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara Case No. 1-00-CV-788657 Statement of Decision

    E-FILED: Jan 7, 2014 4:06 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-00-CV-788657 Filing #G-59619 1 A. ARCO................................................................................................................... 45 2 B. ConAgra............................................................................................................... 50 DUPONT.............................................................................................................. 54 3

    NL INDUSTRIES................................................................................................ 62 4 E. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS....................................................................................... 72 5 VIII. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS' CROSS-CLAIM.................................................................... 78 6 IX. THE PEOPLE'S RESPONSE TO SW'S CROSS-COMPLAINT............................... 79

    DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES............................................................. 80 7

    JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY.............................................................................. 84 8 XII. REMEDY.......................................................................................................................... 85 9 XIII. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW............................................ 93 10 A. Findings of Fact................................................................................................... 93 B. Conclusions of Law............................................................................................. 94 11 SUMMARY OF DECISION......................................................................................... 110 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 People v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. ii Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara Case No. 1-00-CV-788657 Statement of Decision

    E-FILED: Jan 7, 2014 4:06 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-00-CV-788657 Filing #G-59619 1 The People seek an order to abate the alleged public nuisance created by lead paint 2 manufactured or sold by five Defendants in ten jurisdictions in California. Filed thirteen years 3 ago, the matter came on for a bench trial on July 15-18, 22-25, 29-30, August 1, August 5-8, 4 August 12-15, August 19-22, 2013 in Department 1 (Complex Civil Litigation), the Honorable 5 James P. Kleinberg presiding.1 The appearances of counsel for each trial day are as noted in 6 the record. Pursuant to the Court's Order of August 16, 2013 each party simultaneously 7 submitted its detailed version of a proposed statement of decision ("PSOD") for the Court to 8 consider in rendering this opinion. And, on September 23, 2013 the greater part of the day was 9 devoted to closing arguments. Following argument the matter was submitted for decision. On 10 November 4, 2013 the Court issued an Order directing the parties to address issues pertaining 11 to the proposed plan of abatement with which the parties complied; the case then stood 12 resubmitted for decision as of November 26, 2013. 13 On December 16, 2013 the Court issued its Proposed Statement of Decision. On 14 December 31, 2013, consistent with the Rules of Court, all parties submitted objections to the 15 Court's proposed decision, which have been reviewed and considered.2 To the extent the Court 16 has not revised its decision as stated herein, all objections by the parties are OVERRULED. 17 The Court, having read and considered the oral and written evidence, having observed 18 the witnesses testifying in...