In re Lead Paint Litigation

In re Lead Paint Litigation

Opinion

 [*408]  [**486]   Justice HOENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In these consolidated complaints, twenty-six municipalities and counties seek [**487]  to recover, from manufacturers and distributors of  [*409]  lead paints, the costs of detecting and removing lead paint from homes and buildings, of providing medical care to residents affected with lead poisoning, and of developing programs to educate residents about the dangers of lead paint. Although the complaints initially sought recovery through a wide variety of legal theories, we are called upon to consider only whether these plaintiffs have  [***14] stated a cognizable claim based on the common law tort of public nuisance. Because we conclude that plaintiffs cannot state a claim consistent with the well-recognized parameters of that tort, and because we further conclude that to find otherwise would be directly contrary to legislative pronouncements governing both lead paint abatement programs and products liability claims, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand for dismissal of the complaints.

This litigation began on December 14, 2001, when the City of Newark and its mayor filed a complaint asserting claims sounding in fraud, public nuisance, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and indemnification. Named as defendants were a large number of companies that had manufactured lead pigments or lead paints, or that were the corporate successors to the manufacturers of those products. ¹ Shortly thereafter, twenty-five other plaintiffs ² filed  [*410]  complaints similar to the one filed by the City of Newark. By order dated February 11, 2002, this Court designated "all pending and future litigation involving damages or other relief arising out of the manufacture, sale, distribution and/or use of lead-based paint" as a  [***15] mass tort. See R. 4:38A. Pursuant to that order, all of the complaints were transferred to a single vicinage and assigned to one judge for management.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints  [***16] for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See R. 4:6-2(e). After briefing and oral argument, the trial court issued an order granting defendants' motion, accompanied by a lengthy written decision. ³

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.