Opinion ID: 1470023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Whether the Presence of Lead Paint Constitutes a Public Nuisance

Text: After thoroughly reviewing the complaint filed by the state in this case, we are of the opinion that the trial justice erred in denying defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, under Rhode Island law, a complaint for public nuisance minimally must allege: (1) an unreasonable interference; (2) with a right common to the general public; (3) by a person or people with control over the instrumentality alleged to have created the nuisance when the damage occurred; and (4) causation. Even considering the allegations of fact as set forth in the complaint, we cannot ascertain allegations in the complaint that support each of these elements. The state's complaint alleges simply that [d]efendants created an environmental hazard that continues and will continue to unreasonably interfere with the health, safety, peace, comfort or convenience of the residents of the [s]tate, thereby constituting a public nuisance. Absent from the state's complaint is any allegation that defendants have interfered with a public right as that term long has been understood in the law of public nuisance. Equally problematic is the absence of any allegation that defendants had control over the lead pigment at the time it caused harm to children. At the motion to dismiss stage, defendants argued that the [s]tate has not asserted a public nuisance claim because a public right has not been infringed and because the defendants' lead did not cause the alleged harm while within their control as product manufacturers or promoters. The defendants also argued that the state's complaint did not seek to enjoin those people who were responsible for maintaining the public nuisance. For its part, the state argued that the public's right to be free from the hazards of unabated lead had been infringed and that defendants were responsible for the presence of lead in public and private properties throughout Rhode Island. After considering both these arguments, the trial justice denied defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the state had sufficiently averred that defendants' conduct unreasonably interfered with the health, safety, peace, comfort or convenience of the general community. We disagree. A necessary element of public nuisance is an interference with a public right  those indivisible resources shared by the public at large, such as air, water, or public rights of way. The interference must deprive all members of the community of a right to some resource to which they otherwise are entitled. See 4 Restatement (Second) Torts § 821B, cmt. g at 92. The Restatement (Second) provides much guidance in ascertaining the fine distinction between a public right and an aggregation of private rights. Conduct does not become a public nuisance merely because it interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by a large number of persons. Id. See also City of St. Louis v. Benjamin Moore & Co., 226 S.W.3d 110, 116 (Mo. 2007) (quoting State ex inf. Ashcroft v. Kansas City Firefighters Local No. 42, 672 S.W.2d 99, 114-15 (Mo.Ct.App.1984)); In re Lead Paint Litigation, 924 A.2d at 501. Although the state asserts that the public's right to be free from the hazards of unabated lead had been infringed, this contention falls far short of alleging an interference with a public right as that term traditionally has been understood in the law of public nuisance. The state's allegation that defendants have interfered with the health, safety, peace, comfort or convenience of the residents of the [s]tate standing alone does not constitute an allegation of interference with a public right. See Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 290 Ill.Dec. 525, 821 N.E.2d at 1114. The term public right is reserved more appropriately for those indivisible resources shared by the public at large, such as air, water, or public rights of way. See American Cyanamid Co., 291 Ill.Dec. 116, 823 N.E.2d at 131, 139 (persuaded by the defendants' argument to this effect). Expanding the definition of public right based on the allegations in the complaint would be antithetical to the common law and would lead to a widespread expansion of public nuisance law that never was intended, as we discuss infra. In declining to adopt such a widespread expansion of the law, we are mindful of the words of Edmund Burke that bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. 1 Edmund Burke, The Works of Edmund Burke: With a Memoir 318 (1860). The right of an individual child not to be poisoned by lead paint is strikingly similar to other examples of nonpublic rights cited by courts, the Restatement (Second), and several leading commentators. See Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 290 Ill.Dec. 525, 821 N.E.2d at 1114 (concluding that there is no public right to be free from unreasonable jeopardy to health, welfare, and safety, and from unreasonable threats of danger to person and property, caused by the presence of illegal weapons in the city of Chicago); 4 Restatement (Second) Torts § 821B, cmt. g at 92 (the individual right that everyone has not to be assaulted or defamed or defrauded or negligently injured is not a public right); Gifford, 71 U. Cin. L. Rev. at 815 (there is no common law public right to a certain standard of living, to a certain standard of medical care, or to a certain standard of housing). In the words of one commentator: Despite the tragic nature of the child's illness, the exposure to lead-based paint usually occurs within the most private and intimate of surroundings, his or her own home. Injuries occurring in this context do not resemble the rights traditionally understood as public rights for public nuisance purposes  obstruction of highways and waterways, or pollution of air or navigable streams. Gifford, 71 U. Cin. L. Rev. at 818. The enormous leap that the state urges us to take is wholly inconsistent with the widely recognized principle that the evolution of the common law should occur gradually, predictably, and incrementally. Were we to hold otherwise, we would change the meaning of public right to encompass all behavior that causes a widespread interference with the private rights of numerous individuals. The Illinois Supreme Court recently hypothesized on the effect of a broader recognition of public right. In Beretta, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether there was a public right to be free from unreasonable jeopardy to health, welfare, and safety, and from unreasonable threats of danger to person and property, caused by the presence of illegal weapons in the city of Chicago. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 290 Ill.Dec. 525, 821 N.E.2d at 1114. In concluding that there was not, the court acknowledged the far-reaching effects of a decision otherwise. Id. 290 Ill.Dec. 525, 821 N.E.2d at 1116. The court speculated that [i]f there is public right to be free from the threat that others may use a lawful product to break the law, that right would include the right to drive upon the highways, free from the risk of injury posed by drunk drivers. This public right to safe passage on the highways would provide the basis for public nuisance claims against brewers and distillers, distributing companies, and proprietors of bars, taverns, liquor stores, and restaurants with liquor licenses, all of whom could be said to contribute to an interference with the public right. Id. In taking the analogy a step further, the court considered the effect of other product misuse, stating: Similarly, cell phones, DVD players, and other lawful products may be misused by drivers, creating a risk of harm to others. In an increasing number of jurisdictions, state legislatures have acted to ban the use of these otherwise legal products while driving. A public right to be free from the threat that other drivers may defy these laws would permit nuisance liability to be imposed on an endless list of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of manufactured products that are intended to be, or are likely to be, used by drivers, distracting them and causing injury to others. Id. Like the Beretta court, we see no reason to depart from the long-standing principle that a public right is a right of the public to shared resources such as air, water, or public rights of way. Even had the state adequately alleged an interference with a right common to the general public, which we conclude it did not, the state's complaint also fails to allege any facts that would support a conclusion that defendants were in control of the lead pigment at the time it harmed Rhode Island's children. The state filed suit against defendants in their capacity either as the manufacturer of    lead pigment    or as the successors in interest to such manufacturers for the cumulative presence of lead pigment in paints and coatings in or on buildings throughout the [s]tate of Rhode Island. For the alleged public nuisance to be actionable, the state would have had to assert that defendants not only manufactured the lead pigment but also controlled that pigment at the time it caused injury to children in Rhode Island  and there is no allegation of such control. The New Jersey Supreme Court applied these same elements to the lead paint litigation in that jurisdiction and likewise held that public nuisance was an improper cause of action. The court emphasized that were it to permit these complaints to proceed, [it] would stretch the concept of public nuisance far beyond recognition and would create a new and entirely unbounded tort antithetical to the meaning and inherent theoretical limitations of the tort of public nuisance. In re Lead Paint Litigation, 924 A.2d at 494. We agree. We conclude, therefore, that there was no set of facts alleged in the state's complaint that, even if proven, could have demonstrated that defendants' conduct, however unreasonable, interfered with a public right or that defendants had control over the product causing the alleged nuisance at the time children were injured. Accordingly, we need not decide whether defendants' conduct was unreasonable or whether defendants caused an injury to children in Rhode Island. In denying defendants' motion to dismiss, the highly respected trial justice, however well intentioned, departed from the traditional requirements of common law public nuisance. The Restatement (Second) warns against any such departure from the common law, noting that [i]f a defendant's conduct in interfering with a public right does not come within one of the traditional categories of the common law crime of public nuisance or is not prohibited by a legislative act, the court is acting without an established and recognized standard. 4 Restatement (Second) Torts, § 821B, cmt. e at 90. We pause, however, to acknowledge the complexity of the issues presented in this case [17] and to note that, in reversing the judgment of the Superior Court, we mean no disrespect to the distinguished trial justice, the jury, the members of our judiciary, the trial lawyers, or the Office of the Attorney General  all of whom labored for years over this formidable and problematic case. Finally, our decision that defendants' conduct does not constitute a public nuisance as that term has for centuries been understood in Anglo-American law does not leave Rhode Islanders without a remedy. For example, an injunction requiring abatement may be sought against landlords who allow lead paint on their property to decay. See, e.g., Pine v. Kalian, 723 A.2d 804, 804-05 (R.I.1998) (mem.) (upholding the Superior Court's grant of an injunction requiring that two landlords abate the lead hazard in their property). In addition, the LPPA provides for penalties and fines against those property owners who violate its rules or procedures. Sections 23-24.6-23 and 23-24.6-27. The LHMA further authorizes a private cause of action to be brought on behalf of households with at-risk occupants to seek injunctive relief to compel property owners to comply with the act. G.L. 1956 § 42-128.1-10. Apart from these actions, the proper means of commencing a lawsuit against a manufacturer of lead pigments for the sale of an unsafe product is a products liability action. The law of public nuisance never before has been applied to products, however harmful. Courts in other states consistently have rejected product-based public nuisance suits against lead pigment manufacturers, expressing a concern that allowing such a lawsuit would circumvent the basic requirements of products liability law. See American Cyanamid Co., 291 Ill.Dec. 116, 823 N.E.2d at 134; Benjamin Moore & Co., 226 S.W.3d at 116; In re Lead Paint Litigation, 924 A.2d at 503-05. Public nuisance focuses on the abatement of annoying or bothersome activities. Products liability law, on the other hand, has its own well-defined structure, which is designed specifically to hold manufacturers liable for harmful products that the manufacturers have caused to enter the stream of commerce. Undoubtedly, public nuisance and products liability are two distinct causes of action, each with rational boundaries that are not intended to overlap. In 1971, this Court adopted the doctrine of strict liability for products as set forth in the Restatement (Second) Torts. See Ritter v. Narragansett Electric Co., 109 R.I. 176, 192, 283 A.2d 255, 263 (1971) (It is our conclusion, then, that the rule stated in § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts may be invoked in cases of products liability in appropriate cases.). We require two elements: (1) `the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product,' and (2) the product `is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.' Olshansky v. Rehrig International, 872 A.2d 282, 287 (R.I.2005) (quoting Ritter, 109 R.I. at 188, 283 A.2d at 261). These two elements are crucial for the imposition of liability in a products liability suit, yet neither element is a requirement of public nuisance. A product-based public nuisance cause of action bears a close resemblance to a products liability action, yet it is not limited by the strict requirements that surround a products liability action. Courts presented with product-based public nuisance claims have expressed their concern over the ease with which a plaintiff could bring what properly would be characterized as a products liability suit under the guise of product-based public nuisance. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in rejecting the public nuisance claims against lead pigment manufacturers wrote that [w]e cannot help but agree with the observation that, were we to find a cause of action here, `nuisance law would become a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.' In re Lead Paint Litigation, 924 A.2d at 505 (quoting Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta, U.S.A. Corp., 273 F.3d 536, 540 (3d Cir.2001)); see also U.S. Gypsum, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d at 883 ([N]uisance cases `universally' concern the use or condition of property, not products.) (quoting Detroit Board of Education v. Celotex Corp., 196 Mich.App. 694, 493 N.W.2d 513, 521 (1992)). Other courts have rendered similar rulings. In Benjamin Moore & Co., the Missouri Supreme Court held that the city's public nuisance claim with respect to lead paint in buildings must be dismissed because the city could not identify the specific products used in the buildings. Benjamin Moore & Co., 226 S.W.3d at 113, 116. Likewise, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected Chicago's assertion that public nuisance claims do not require identification of the product as being that of the defendant. American Cyanamid Co., 291 Ill.Dec. 116, 823 N.E.2d at 139-40. These cases demonstrate that even if a lawsuit is characterized as a public nuisance cause of action, the suit nonetheless sounds in products liability if it is against a manufacturer based on harm caused by its products. Regardless of the label placed on the cause of action, the elements of products liability still must be met to properly maintain such a product-based proceeding. It is essential that these two causes of action remain just that  two separate and distinct causes of action. Addressing this distinction and the danger of a product-based public nuisance suit against gun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, a New York appellate court explained that giving a green light to a common-law public nuisance cause of action today will    likely open the courthouse doors to a flood of limitless, similar theories of public nuisance, not only against these defendants, but also against a wide and varied array of other commercial and manufacturing enterprises and activities. People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 309 A.D.2d 91, 761 N.Y.S.2d 192, 196 (N.Y.App.Div.2003). All a creative mind would need to do is construct a scenario describing a known or perceived harm of a sort that can somehow be said to relate back to the way a company or an industry makes, markets and/or sells its non-defective, lawful product or service, and a public nuisance claim would be conceived and a lawsuit born. Id. The Rhode Island General Assembly has recognized that lead paint has created a public health hazard and, pursuant to its power to legislate, has adopted several statutory schemes to address this problem. Collectively, the LPPA and the LHMA reflect the General Assembly's chosen means of responding to the state's childhood lead poisoning problem. The legislative body made clear policy decisions about how to reduce lead hazards in Rhode Island homes, buildings, and other dwellings and who should be responsible. Importantly, the General Assembly has recognized that landlords, who are in control of the lead pigment at the time it becomes hazardous, are responsible for maintaining their premises and ensuring that the premises are lead-safe. Quite tellingly, the General Assembly's chosen means of remedying childhood lead poisoning in Rhode Island did not include an authorization of an action for public nuisance against the manufacturers of lead pigments, despite the fact that this action seeking to impose liability on various lead pigment manufacturers was well under way at the time the LHMA was enacted. Indeed, even the trial justice recognized the absence of legislation governing defendants' actions. He found the LPPA inapplicable because it does not address in any fashion the actions of these defendants and because [t]he statutes and regulations do not authorize the existence of the claimed public nuisance. By focusing on the party in control of the instrumentality at the time the harm occurs, the General Assembly's enactments are wholly consistent with the law of public nuisance in this state and all other jurisdictions.