Does it show that lead paint can be kept safe? Or is it proof that the paints always pose a hazard?

The state and paint companies argued about the house yesterday as the paint companies moved to have the state's public nuisance case against them dismissed. After listening to nearly three hours of arguments, Judge Michael A. Silverstein said he would rule next week.

The paint companies displayed a photograph of the house during their opening statements one month ago. They said it was a prime example of how a lead-painted house can be kept safe through good maintenance.

Last week, the state revealed that it sent inspectors to the house and they found it was actually filled with lead hazards. When state lawyer Leonard Decof tried to enter the inspections as evidence, the paint companies objected, triggering a Titanic round of legal arguments.

Silverstein finally ruled to keep the inspections out of the trial.

But yesterday, in arguing for dismissal of the case while the jury was out of the courtroom, paint company lawyer John Tarantino brought up the house again.

Tarantino said many of the state's witnesses looked at a photograph of the Victorian house and said they couldn't tell if it was a hazard. They would have to run tests.

That shows lead-painted houses are not the ticking time bombs that the state alleges, Tarantino said.

But Decof pointed out that the house was in fact, filled with lead hazards.

Decof said he was surprised that Tarantino would even mention the house again.

"He somehow thought that supported his case," Decof said. "I think it's time to look at the truth for what it is here."

Tarantino's biggest argument for dismissal was based on the state's lead-paint protection law.

Most of the state's witnesses called for getting rid of all lead paint, Tarantino said. But the state law and the regulations passed to enforce it don't mention getting rid of lead paint. They focus on how to make a lead-painted house safe through maintenance and cleaning.

"The law allows the presence of lead paint, and the plaintiffs say, I don't care," Tarantino said. "That's a head-to-head, point-to-point, smack-dab conflict with the statute."

Tarantino also called on the judge to throw out any evidence that was submitted about health effects for childen whose blood lead levels are below 20 micrograms per deciliter, saying evidence at those low levels is not clear.

Decof responded that the trial is about whether lead paint creates a public nuisance. How that nuisance is to be remedied would be dealt with in a later trial. So it's wrong to focus on witnesses who said that they want to get rid of lead, he said.

As for any confusion about low blood levels, Decof said that both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the state Health Department said 10 deciliters and above is poisoned. That means 35,000 Rhode Island children have been poisoned in the last eight years, Decof said.

"The evidence is overwhelming," Decof said. "We've had the biggest experts in the country come here and describe what lead is and what it does to children. Lead is a poison. Lead poisoning of children in Rhode Island is an epidemic."

The defense put its first witness on the stand yesterday afternoon. Patrick Connor said he heads Connor Environmental Services, a company that does lead inspections across the country.

Connor didn't get a chance to say much beyond his qualifications because state lawyers objected that he didn't have the education, experience or knowledge to testify about conditions in Rhode Island.

Silverstein overruled the state. Connor is expected to take the stand when the trial resumes Monday afternoon.

Previous articles? Search Journal Archives