Rhode Island’s Briefs Urge Supreme Court To Reject Defendants’ Appeal For Role In Creating Lead-Paint Public Nuisance

Tagged:  •    •    •  

Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch issued the following statement concerning the briefs that the State filed today in connection with the appeal of the historic verdict in the lead-paint litigation. The Rhode Island Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on this case on May 15, 2008.

“Today we filed arguments on behalf of the State urging the Supreme Court to uphold the historic verdict entered by a jury of Rhode Island citizens after hearing months of arguments. In part, our briefs assert:

‘Using the well-established and ancient common law theory of public nuisance, the Attorney General sought to achieve a permanent solution to the lead-poisoning crisis that has plagued Rhode Island for generations. In bringing this action, we recognized that the lead-pigment manufacturers had shirked their responsibility to this State and our people by failing to take a single step to remediate the health crisis they helped cause. The defendants’ role in creating this public nuisance is well supported by the evidence, and their pleas to the Supreme Court represent nothing more than their most recent effort to avoid responsibility. Their arguments to the Court are no more availing than the arguments made to the trial court; the story they tell is no more convincing than the one already rejected by the jury. Because the trial court applied Rhode Island public nuisance law correctly and properly instructed the jury, we are asking the Court to deny the defendants’ appeal of the legal rulings in this case. Furthermore, because the jury already rejected the defendants’ evidence and argument, and instead based a decision on the credible evidence in the record, we are asking the Supreme Court to uphold the verdict.’

“We look forward to continue fighting for the rights and health of all Rhode Islanders, but especially our children, in May.”

Source: Rhode Island Attorney General


Yes We Can

Yes We Can: