Yes, the lead-paint rumor, provided through a leak to this blog, was on the money.
Today, James Cordrey, legal editor at LexisNexis, confirmed that a jury in Mississippi returned a verdict against Sherwin-Williams in "Shermeker Pollard, et. al. v. The Sherman-Williams Co. Inc., et al." According to the E-mail Bulletin, issued by MEALEY'S LITIGATION REPORT: LEAD, that jury "handed down a $7 million verdict against The Sherwin-Williams Co. in favor of a boy who had claimed that the defendants were strictly liable and negligent for selling lead paint that was used on his house and resulted in his lead poisoning ... The verdict, handed down June 25, awarded economic damages only, as punitives were not sought."
The plaintiff Shermeker Pollard, reports Cordrey, individually and on behalf of her son Trellvion Gaines, filed the original complaint in Jefferson County Circuit Court against:
- Sherwin-Williams
- NL Industries
- Robert Case d/b a Fayette Lumber & Supply Company
- William Darsey, individually and d/b/a Darsey Hardware Company and Darsey Hardware & Furniture Company
- Hirsch's Store.
Eventually, NL Industries and the locals were dropped from the case. The lawsuit, which then proceeded against Sherwin-Williams, alleged that its product, which contained lead, was specifically used to paint the plaintiff's house. Defendant argued that there was no evidence of product identification, that is, no admissible evidence to support the allegation that the property was indeed painted with its paint.
Full details about this litigation will be available in the July edition of MEALEY's. Documents are available for a fee from LexisNexis.com, MEALEY'S, or directly from James Cordrey at 610-205-1125, James.cordrey@lexisnexis.com.
I am going to seek comment from those associated with the defendant. However, I can say that this verdict could open or re-open Pandora's box in the lead-paint issue. Here's why:
- The product used was identified as manufactured by Sherwin-Williams. Most litigation, such as "Thomas," which was won by the five defendants, presented evidence that product identification was impossible. If there is an appeal, my hunch is that it will focus on the ID matter.
- Personal injury, as opposed to class-action suits, can invoke sympathy from the jurors and the court of public opinion. While class-action litigation, with the exception of the Santa Clara, California public nuisance lawsuit, hasn't proved to be too promising in lead paint, the personal injury one might prove to be more productive. In Milwaukee, a number of personal injury suits are pending.
- Lead-paint lawsuits against the paint companies, middleman retailers, and property owners could continue a long time. MEALEY'S will have a long publication shelf life.
Input wanted, on- or off-the-record. Please contact Jane Genova at Mgenova981@aol.com or 203-468-8579.
Readers of this blog thank James Cordrey for his reporting.
Was it proven by scientific evidence that the lead actually came from the paint? Are there any incidents wherein people are poisoned by lead using the same brand of paint? If it was proven that the lead indeed came from that particular paint, the manufacturer can also be held liable. Quite surprising actually, for as far as I know, all lead-based paints are now banned.
Posted by: Mike Clark | August 04, 2011 at 02:22 PM
Be it a class-action suits or a lawsuit related to personal injury the thing in this case it that the paint contained lead and the plaintiff used this paint which led to a personal injury. They argue that there is no proof that the plaintiff's house was painted with that particular paint. So this has to be proved and if proved then only that person can have a personal injury lawsuit claim.
Even if that paint contained lead there can be a public interest litigation filed against the manufacturer.
Posted by: Personal Injury Lawsuit | July 05, 2009 at 11:32 PM