skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Judge: San Diego To Receive $77M In $1B Lead Paint Ruling

Above: Lead-based paints were barred from the U.S. market in 1978, but millions of homes painted before then still pose a health risk.

SAN JOSE — A state judge on Monday ordered paint companies to pay 10 California cities and counties $1.1 billion to remove lead from millions of older homes.

At a glance

Here's a look at how much each jurisdiction was awarded:

Los Angeles County: $605 million

Alameda County and City of Oakland: $99 million

Santa Clara County: $99 million

City of San Diego: $77 million

City and County of San Francisco: $77 million

San Mateo County: $55 million

Ventura County: $44 million

Monterey County: $22 million

Solano County: $22 million

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg found that Conagra Grocery Products Co., NL Industries Inc. and the Sherwin-Williams Co. marketed paint they knew was harmful to children. Atlantic Richfield Co. and DuPont Co. were found not liable.

Kleinberg's verdict came after a five-week trial without a jury. The companies have 15 days to object to the ruling, which the judge labeled as "tentative."

"There is a clear and present danger that needs to be addressed," Kleinberg wrote in his 110-page decision. "The defendants sold lead paint with actual and constructive knowledge that it was harmful."

Lead-based paints were barred from the U.S. market in 1978, but millions of homes painted before then still pose a health risk.

The industry argued that it never deliberately sold a harmful product and that the old paint is no longer a significant public health risk. An appeal is expected.

Exposure to lead is linked to learning disabilities and other health problems, especially in children.

The case has taken 13 years to reach trial because of objections from the industry, but appeals courts have allowed it to proceed. It alleges the manufacturers knew of lead-paint dangers starting in the 1890s but still sold it to consumers without health warnings.

The industry has faced similar lawsuits across the country, winning most them.

Please stay on topic and be as concise as possible. Leaving a comment means you agree to our Community Discussion Rules. We like civilized discourse. We don't like spam, lying, profanity, harassment or personal attacks.

comments powered by Disqus