"You can't say that they [Sherwin-Williams] were big players nationally" and then on that basis construct a scenario on what they might have done in Rhode Island. Essentially that was Paul Michael Pohl's point today at the hearing on the defense's motions for a new trial in the Rhode Island (RI) lead paint trial. His presentation on behalf of his client Sherwin-Williams reinforced those of NL Industries and Millennium Holdings about the pyramiding of inference upon inference built on national market share numbers, with no numbers for RI per se.
If you read law blogs such as Overlawyered.com or Pointoflaw.com, you know that this controversy about using national market share numbers is not just part of the RI lead paint saga. Clearly, and Pohl called the state on it in his arguments today, the plaintiff applied the strategy of large national market share to position the defendant as a big - code word perhaps for "bad - company. In fact, Pohl closed his presentation by noting that in its opening arguments, the state flashed the logo of Sherwin-Williams. The message, opined Pohl, was: Sherwin-Williams is a big company. Therefore, and the jury could fill in the rest.
If you want to talk influence, this tactic of mentioning how big companies are often assumed to be guilty simply because of their size was effective. Also, Pohl was highly specific in citing the state's failure to nail down what in the world Sherwin-Williams was doing or not doing in RI. But, Judge Michael Silverstein is the one in charge and he will decide on the legal aspects of Pohl's arguments.
Comments