Cleveland City Council has finally acknowledged the poisoning of thousands of children in its midst. But don’t get too excited—your leaders aren’t actually going to do anything about it.
Monday night, Council passed a resolution—non-binding, of course—urging Mayor Frank Jackson to consider suing Sherwin-Williams and other companies that sold lead paint for decades after they discovered it was toxic to kids (“The Poison Kids,” Aug. 16, 2006). Most other big cities in Ohio have already filed suit. Yet Cleveland, home to one of the highest rates of childhood lead poisoning in the country, has been holding out.
Now time is running out. Friday is the last day to file if Cleveland wants to avoid major battles at the state level over whether such suits are even legal. ACORN, the community activist group, is pushing Jackson to make a decision fast.
Since the Invisible Mayor tends to move slower than Dick Cheney’s pacemaker, we’re not holding our breath. Expect a major announcement some time around Labor Day. — Lisa Rab

This article appears in Mar 28 – Apr 3, 2007.

6 replies on “Cleveland Council pushes lead paint suit”

  1. Ms. Rab is obviously misinformed, thanks in large part to money hungry lawyers and misguided anti-social groups such as ACORN. In fact the paint companies discovered potential hazards from lead and removed it from their paints decades BEFORE the government mandated it. They are being sued by politicians who are only looking to gain seemingly easy votes in the next election rather than holding the property owners responsible for keeping the properties in disrepair accountable.

  2. Cleveland and other cities and states should indeed sue the former lead paint manufacturers. Landlords most certainly should not be allowed to let their properties poison their occupants, but the lead paint companies continued to sell lead paint for decades after learning that it was poisoning and killing young children. And contrary to the previous letter writer, some of the companies continued to sell lead paint into the 1970s – as discovered by the New York City Health Department in a survey that it did in 1971.

  4. But to hear the whole truth about lead paint read this law review article:
    Getting the Lead Out: How Public Nuisance Law Protects Rhode Island’s Children
    By Aileen Sprague, Fidelma Fitzpatrick
    INTRODUCTION
    On February 22, 2006, a jury of Rhode Islanders delivered a decisive verdict in a
    case that had been the source of significant political, social, and economic debate
    since it was filed in 1999. On that day, a jury of six, who had devoted more than
    four months of their lives hearing evidence in the longest civil jury trial in Rhode
    Island’s history, [FN1] delivered a victory for the people of the *604 State of
    Rhode Island by rendering a verdict determining that: (1) the presence of lead
    pigments in paints throughout Rhode Island was a public nuisance; (2) three former
    manufacturers, suppliers, and promoters of lead pigments – Sherwin Williams,
    Millennium Holdings, and NL Industries (hereinafter “Lead manufacturers” or
    “Defendants”) – were liable for that public nuisance; and (3) the responsible
    defendants were required to abate the existing nuisance.
    Complete article:
    http://www.gelmans.com/FrontEnd/ReadingRoom/vwFile.asp?FileId=267

  5. Yeah, that’s really non-biased. An article wriitten by the law firm that’s bringing all these lawsuits. Nice try.

  6. Please note that the article mentioned in letter #3 above was written by members of a law firm that defends chemical companies – including one of the lead paint company defendants, ARCO.

Comments are closed.