|
SB 117 as a "lead paint bill" Some have called State Bill 117 "the lead paint bill." That is not an accurate "label". Most of the amendments loaded on to SB 117, such as the $5,000 limit on non-economic damages, were much broader in their impact than lead paint. But one of the 'midnight' amendments, rushed through last December by a lame-duck legislature, without public comments and testimony, did deal with lead paint lawsuits. As background, many authorities describe how lead poisoning harms children. For example, the National Safety Council states "Even low levels of exposure to lead can result in IQ deficits, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, stunted or slowed growth, and impaired hearing." more ... Further, lead paint is a serious health hazard in older (and often poorer, often minority) neighborhoods. In 2004 more than 40 percent of Cuyahoga County children tested showed elevated blood lead. more ... Some health advocates say that the lead paint industry, which manufactured and sold a product they knew to be hazardous for decades (until our federal government banned it in 1978) should be held responsible for dealing with the public health hazard of lead poisoning. more .... In recent years the State of Rhode Island; counties in California, New Jersey, and Texas; cities (including San Francisco, Milwaukee and St. Louis); school districts (California, Mississippi and Texas) and the New York City Housing Authority have filed or joined suits against the lead pigment manufacturers. more ... Some of these public nuisance law suits to force former lead paint makers to pay cleanup costs have had victories, as in Rhode Island, but many have lost in the courts. more ... Rather than let the courts decide if public nuisance suits against lead paint manufacturers would prevail, manufacturers asked for and got an amendment attached to SB 117 that prohibited such suits relative to lead paint and other products. Former governor Taft approved this action saying:
Setting aside the very practical question of knowing who made the paint used on a home or apartment building many years ago, there is the serious matter of how our lawmakers should deal with such an important issue. You may believe that the men and women we send to Columbus to represent us, after public testimony, citizen comments and adequate discussion, should decide to limit such claims to our products liability law. Or you may feel that no change in the law is needed; that our courts should decide these cases. By repealing SB 117, rushed to passage without public testimony, this question can be addressed again — this time with the more open and more careful consideration that it deserves. |