Lead footed lawsuit

Lead-based paint was banned in the US in 1978 and has not been sold since, but that did not stop the state of Rhode Island from successfully suing paint manufacturers for paint sold before the ban.

So for selling an at-the-time entirely legal product, paint manufacturers are forced to pay millions in clean-up, public education and compliance programs.

The state, anxious to get it's hands on more money, tried to sue for punitive damages but was rebuffed by the judge.

Please tell me why companies are legally at fault for selling a lawful product. You can make a moral argument, if you assume the paint companies knew about the dangers of lead-based paint before they discontinued production. But legally, what is the argument.

This is where the difference between the liberal view of judges and the conservative view of judges rests. Conservatives believe that judges should look strictly at the law, statutes and the Constitution and hold companies or individual to that consistent standard. Liberals believe judges should look at moral implications and do what "should be done." You want to talk about legislating morality, here it is - from the judiciary.

Comments

[Sam]

Aaron,

Your child gets sick. You give your child a medicine approved by the federal government. Your child gets sicker and dies. You're telling me that you're just going to walk away? Even if that death was a result of the medication?

It seems to me that the legality of a product at the time doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is safe. Numerous cars have been sold that increase the chance for rollover or explosion. It was absolutely legal for them to be sold. But if marketers rushed a product to the market, and then discovered it was unsafe, it seems to be that those marketers can be held responsible.

Or are you saying the legality of something immediately eliminates responsibility?

[Aaron]

I'm not sure what I would do Sam, but suing someone over something they did is not going to bring my child back.

And ultimately my feelings don't have anything to do with it. When a child, or anyone else, dies from lead paint, a car accident or anything else - it is a tragedy. When should try to prevent those as much as possible, but that does not mean we must sue or bring lawsuits ever time someone dies.

It is not the courts job to determine what is moral - do you, of all people, really want to go that route? Legislatures determine the laws and justice system enforces those laws. They don't get to decide that this law is good, but this one is bad so I am going to change it. If it is bad (ie unconstitutional), then they send it back to the legislature for a change.

Lead paint was outlawed and the companies complied with that - fulfilling their legal obligation. Morally, should they take responsibility to remove all lead paint and work to eliminate the danger from that? That could be argued, not to mention the great PR that it would be for them to do that. But legally, I don't see a way to punish them for this - unless they proved the companies knowingly hid information that indicated the paint was harmful and I haven't seen anything to show that was even part of the case.

[Evil_Lonnie]

I believe the term we are looking for is "Ex Post Facto" law. It simply wasn't a regulation or a crime. We cannot rule after the fact that wrongdoing ocurred because it was legal at the time.

Yes it sucks, but unfortunately we can't forsee everything. To punish the business for anything that might possibly go wrong would hamper our ability to progress and provide.

The only way that a business can be held liable for a product is if it violated existing laws, or that the company KNEW that there was a danger inherent in their product.

[seeker]

I dunno, tobacco companies knew their product was dangerous, and lied about it. Are they liable?

[Evil_Lonnie]

Their contention was that SOME evidence pointed to tobacco being dangerous, but that it was inconclusive.

(I know that is an amazingly weak argument, but it has held in some courts)

[Sam]

*Sigh*

If we go the route that you seem to be suggesting - that individuals are thusly responsible for all of their own product testing - what is to prevent companies from knowingly allowing dangerous products onto the market? If they have no liability for what they produce, why would car companies, for example, have any incentive to build a safer product?

I know you guys are conservatives, but come on. If we're going to be responsible as individuals, then companies should be similarly responsible.