Jurors in the public-nuisance lawsuit will return this morning for their third day.

01:00 AM EST on Thursday, February 16, 2006

BY PETER B. LORD
Journal Environment Writer

PROVIDENCE -- A jury spent nearly a second full day deliberating on the state's lead-poisoning public nuisance lawsuit, before asking Judge Michael A. Silverstein to further explain one of the most basic issues on which it was being asked to rule.

The jury asked the judge if it was possible to get a further clarification of what constituted "unreasonable interference in regard to the rights common to the general public."

The question is a key part of the first of three questions on which the jury is being asked to rule.

The jury is being asked to decide that lead pigments used in paints created a public nuisance in Rhode Island. If it finds they did, it must decide whether the four defendant corporations are responsible. If it finds they are, it must decide whether they should remove the paints.

On Monday, Silverstein gave a lengthy charge to the jury that, among other things, discussed the elements that he believed would go towards creating a public nuisance.

In that charge, Silverstein explained that unreasonable interference of common rights occurs when people suffer harm they should not have to bear. (The state contends that the poisoning of more than 37,000 children in 11 years proves such suffering took place.)

With the jury outside the courtroom late yesterday, Silverstein asked lawyers on both sides what they thought he should do.

Defense lawyers said that, even though they didn't agree with his original instructions, the judge shouldn't try to interpret them now.

Fidelma Fitzpatrick, representing the state, wondered whether Silverstein couldn't repeat some of his charge, but use different words.

Silverstein decided to simply read to the jury two pages of his charge, which explained his definition of a public nuisance. Then, the jury quit for the day.

plord@projo.com/ (401) 277-8036