Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Sebok on Rhode Island Lead Paint Decision

In last week's Writ column, Tony Sebok (Cardozo) analyzed the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision rejecting the State's public nuisance claim against the lead paint industry.  (Prior post here).

Sebok calls the decision "a model of common law reasoning," and concludes that the decision added to the law of public nuisance in two important ways: (1) by noting that "the definition of “public right” (the second element in the test for public nuisance) does not refer broadly to any interest shared by all persons in a society," and (2) by holding that "that the law of public nuisance requires not only that the defendant be a substantial cause of the interference, but that the defendant still be in control of the instrumentality that caused the interference at the time when the suit is brought."   

Read his thorough analysis over at Findlaw.

- SBS

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2008/07/sebok-on-rhode.html

Scholarship | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e553bacf138834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sebok on Rhode Island Lead Paint Decision :

» Sebok on Rhode Island lead paint decision from PointOfLaw Forum
Finishing up his three-part series for FindLaw, in which he calls the Rhode Island court's dismissal of the lead paint case "the right answer for the right reasons", the Cardozo lawprof singles out perhaps the most important point that distinguishes... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 21, 2008 3:16:46 AM

Comments

Post a comment