Rhode Island is the first state to sue lead-paint companies for allegedly causing lead poisoning in children.
08/29/2002
BY PETER B. LORD
Journal Environment Writer
PROVIDENCE -- Lawyers agreed late yesterday on six jurors who will hear testimony in the state's precedent-setting lawsuit against eight national companies that made or sold lead-based paints, clearing the way for the trial to start as scheduled next Wednesday.
The panel includes a warehouse supervisor from North Smithfield, a customer service representative from Cranston, a retired warehouse worker from Pawtucket, an accountant from North Providence, a dietary aide from Johnston and a retired Air Force major from Bristol. There are four women and two men.
Hundreds of potential jurors were disqualified because of their answers to a questionnaire seeking their opinions about hazardous materials, frivolous lawsuits, personal responsiblity and lead poisoning.
Several more potential jurors were disqualified during a full day of questioning. Some were allowed to go when they argued that their employers wouldn't pay them during the trial, which is expected to run 8 to 10 weeks. The state compensates jurors $15 a day.
Rhode Island is the first state to sue the paint companies, alleging their products pose a public nuisance because they cause the poisoning of thousands of Rhode Island children each year.
The paint companies have won every one of the dozens of cases filed by individuals, cities and counties. They argue their products were safe and only became harmful as a result of poor maintenance.
Investors, advocacy groups and public officials around the country are waiting for this trial both because of its novel approach and because the state has joined forces with Ness Motley, the law firm that won huge judgments against the asbestos and tobacco industries.
Also, if the state wins, it could trigger similar lawsuits elsewhere and raise the specter of billions of dollars in damage claims. The defendants are American Cyanimid Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., E.I. duPont deNemours & Co., NL Industries, The O'Brien Corp., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Inc., ConAgra Grocery Products Co. and The Sherwin Williams Co.
The state started the day by seeking to disqualify the paint companies' primary lawyer, John Tarantino of Adler, Pollack and Sheehan. Tarantino represents the Atlantic Richfield Co., and in that capacity he testified against state legislation a few years ago that would have allowed the City of Providence to sue the paint companies.
State lawyers said they planned to call Tarantino as a witness in the trial because of that testimony, so he should be barred from serving as legal counsel.
The move split the courtroom. Some 17 lawyers and aides representing the paint companies huddled on one side. The state's team of eight lawyers and aides gathered on the other. In the end, they compromised. Tarantino could be called as a witness, but he would remain as legal counsel as well.
Leonard DeCof, one of the state lawyers, asked potential jurors whether they had any preconceived opinions about whether lead paint is a public nuisance and whether it poisons children. He also wanted to know whether they believed there are too many frivolous lawsuits.
Several responded yes to his last question.
As examples of frivolous lawsuits, one potential juror, Mark A. Baker, an engineer and a member of the Board of Education in Glocester, cited suits against restaurants by people who spill coffee on themselves, or suits against bartenders by those who drink too much.
Another potential juror said she thought the suit by the Los Angeles airport security person against Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy after he shoved her was frivolous.
Tarantino asked jurors whether they had hazardous materials in their homes and how they kept them safe. He also wanted to know whether jurors were homeowners, if they ever rented property and what they did to maintain their properties.
Just about every juror said they were presently painting their houses, or putting on a new roof or siding.
"I keep the inside clean," said one woman. "The outside is up to my husband."
Baker, the Glocester School Board member, was later disqualified by lawyers for the state.
But before he left, Judge Michael A. Silverstein couldn't resist a bit of Rhode Island humor.
"Is the court permitted to inquire if there will be school in Foster-Glocester?" he asked Baker.
