Legal and public-policy experts predicted that the lead issue in synthetic turf wasn't going away. Given the growing distrust in federal agencies, they anticipated that litigation would proceed despite the CPSC's clean bill of health on the amount of lead in synthetic turf.
Well, MEALEY's LEAD REPORT Legal Editor James Cordrey is bringing us up-to-date on the litigation in Chicago and California. Cordrey captures the zeitgeist by quoting a source who spoke off-the-record to his publication.
That source observed, "The recent lead lawsuits regarding synthetic turf athletic fields in Chicago are 'just the tip of the iceberg' for litigation related to such fields because, in addition to a trend toward litigation, new federal regulations will be taking effect February 2009, which will open more doors for lawsuits." The regulations referred to are the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 [CPSIA].
Incidentally, a useful source of background information on CPSIA and other regulations may be the website of the Association of Artificial & Synthetic Grass Installers [ASGI]. It also has links to government websites. Last month ASGI sponsored a conference call on the implications of CPSIA in which I was a guest.
CHICAGO:
As MEALEY's reported last month, on October 13th a Chicago nonprofit community organization sued a number of entities regarding synthetic turf. Those include synthetic turf manufacturer FieldTurf USA. The plaintiff alleges a public nuisance. It also alleges violation of the Illinois Constitution - Article XI, Section 2 - and violation of the Lead Bearings Substances Ordinances of the Chicago City Ordinance Chapter 7-4-010.
What the plaintiff is seeking is to prevent a school from building a synthetic turf athletic field because the product contains lead. The case is "Protect Our Parks Inc., et al. v. Latin School of Chicago, et al."
There's more. Synthetic turf is being attacked not only because of the lead content but also because the product contains rubber tire "crumbs." Those components include known toxic substances. The question, of course, is at what level of presence in the product do those substances become hazardous to human health. The U.S. infant formula industry is facing that same issue with the industrial chemical melamine.
The Chicago lawsuit is interesting because of the public nuisance aspect. Will this be the preferred way for the plaintiffs to package future synthetic-turf lawsuits? Or will public nuisance, as it proved to be in Rhode Island lead paint litigation and the New Hampshire MTBE environmental case, too hard to apply? [Here is the RI Supreme Court decision on public nuisance in lead paint Download Statev.LeadIndustriesAssoc.,Inc.]
CALIFORNIA:
Whatever goes down in California is a must-watch. So all eyes are on "State of California, ex rel. Edmund G. Brown Jr., et al. v. Beaulieu Group, et al." Essentially it's a failure-to-warn case or a violation of Proposition 65 [Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.]
In this synthetic turf litigation, the manufacturers of that product are being sued by the State of California and some municipalities. The plaintiffs allege that the Beaulieu Group LLC, Astroturf LLC and FieldTurf USA Inc. manufactured synthetic turf and lawn products with lead and failed to provide consumers with "clear and reasonable warning" that the metal in the product is known to cause cancer and reproductive harm.
The defendant contends that the lawsuit does not provide facts sufficient for a cause of action. In addition the plaintiff delayed filing the lawsuit which generated prejudice against the defendant. Most importantly and interestingly, the defendant argues that this lawsuit is barred by federal pre-emption.
Documents related to these lawsuits and any other legal matter are available for a fee from LexisNexis. You can contact the company here or contact Legal Editor James Cordrey directly at James.Cordrey@lexisnexis.com, 610-205-1125.
This blog wants to thank James Cordrey for reporting this information on lead. Other excerpts from his December MEALEY's LEAD REPORT will be presented on this blog shortly.
I suggest that you contact the consultant who is providing forensic analysis and recommendations for remediation for projects in Beverly Hills, Connecticut, and elsewhere
Joseph DiGeronimo
DiGeronimo Mikula , LLC
5 Applehill Road
P.O. Box 524
Sturbridge, MA 01566
Tel: 508-579-8015
Fax: 508-347-5911
E-mail:dgeronimo@aol.com
Website: http://www.digeronimosports.com/
Posted by: Ken Davis | December 05, 2008 at 12:45 PM