CHICAGO

UNLESS the Rhode Island Supreme Court puts a stop to it, contingency-fee lawyers for the state will hit the jackpot, scofflaw landlords will be rewarded for violating state law, and the state’s housing market and banking industry will be disrupted for decades to come. All of this over a children’s health “crisis” that turns out to be fake.

And this exact scenario could be repeated in at least 15 states across America if the Rhode Island court doesn’t do the right thing and reverse the jury’s verdict in a case now before it on appeal.

The case started when Rhode Island’s attorney general hired outside lawyers to sue paint manufacturers for the costs of removing every speck of lead-based paint in the state’s housing stock — even paint applied more than 100 years ago. The state won its case at trial in 2006.

Oral arguments in the state Supreme Court are scheduled for tomorrow. If the court upholds the jury verdict, the paint company defendants must pay abatement costs — estimated at $2.4 billion but to be determined later — even though the state had no proof that these manufacturers ever sold the paint in the state, that anyone ever used the paint in the state, or that their paint ever harmed anyone there.

Nor was any evidence introduced — thanks to the trial judge’s ruling barring it — that lead-based paint is even present in any particular property in the state. It was enough that the defendants made lead-based paint and sold it somewhere in the country.

And it gets worse. At trial, an expert for the state testified that 1,167 children in Rhode Island had elevated lead levels in their blood in 2004, around 3.7 percent of those tested. “Great strides” had been made, he said, and the number of affected children has been declining. But he said the numbers had reached a “plateau” in 2004 and the state lead-abatement program would fail to bring about any further declines.

That “plateau” statement was untrue at the moment it was uttered in 2006, and the state knew it. It had 2005 numbers from its Department of Public Health that showed the number of affected children had dropped from 1,167 in 2004 to 621 in 2005, down 54 percent. Despite a demand during trial for updated information, the state kept this bombshell a secret until the trial was over. This deception alone warranted a new trial, but the judge refused to grant one.

If the verdict is upheld, every dwelling in Rhode Island constructed before 1978 (about 240,000 total) will have to be inspected for lead-based paint, regardless of whether the owners agree to that inspection. Residents will be forcibly relocated if their homes need an “extreme makeover” to remove and replace everything with lead paint on it — siding, walls, stairs, even kitchen cabinets — all at the paint companies’ expense.

This scenario is fraught with unintended consequences. First, because Rhode Island law already requires landlords to abate lead hazards in rental units at their own expense, those who neglected to do so would get a free renovation, paid for by the paint companies. Second, real-estate values, already in decline, would further plummet while repairs are under way. This will depress the real-estate resale market and impair the value of assets held by lenders.

And if the Rhode Island Supreme Court lets this happen, at least 15 other states are sure to follow, citing the “enormous” number of children affected by lead. But the share of children with elevated blood lead levels exceeded 2 percent in 2007 only in Ohio (2.3 percent). The figure is at or slightly above 1 percent only in Maine, Vermont and West Virginia. The rest are well under 1 percent.

All of these states have programs like Rhode Island’s, which place the responsibility for maintaining the paint on those who own the property, require landlords to remediate dwellings with deteriorated paint, and educate parents in how to keep their children safe. Those programs are working, and their goal of eliminating the problem by 2010 is well within reach.

We should hope that the Rhode Island Supreme Court will recognize as much.

Maureen Martin ( martin@heartland.org) is senior fellow for legal affairs at the Heartland Institute, which submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the defendants in the Rhode Island paint case. It receives substantial funds from business interests.