People v. Conagra Grocery Prods. Co.
17 Cal. App. 5th 51, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant may be held liable in a representative public nuisance action for affirmatively promoting the interior residential use of lead paint with actual knowledge of the health hazards it would create, provided their conduct was a substantial factor in causing the nuisance and the remedy is remedial abatement. However, such liability for abatement cannot extend to homes built after a period where evidence no longer supports a causal link between the defendants' promotions and the presence of lead paint.
Facts:
- Lead is a toxin that causes irreversible brain damage, and childhood lead poisoning is the number one environmental health problem for children in California, predominantly from lead-based paint in pre-1978 housing.
- Since the 19th century, the medical profession recognized lead paint toxicity, with articles in 1878, 1895, and 1904 describing lead poisoning in children from residential lead paint and dust.
- In May 1910, a U.S. House of Representatives committee held a hearing on a bill to require 'White Lead: poison' labels on products, noting European bans and the dangers of lead dust from deteriorating paint, which paint manufacturers' counsel opposed.
- By 1914, Henry Gardner of the Paint Manufacturers Association acknowledged that white lead dust in residential air was 'very dangerous' and could cause lead poisoning through inhalation.
- NL Industries, Inc., The Sherwin-Williams Company, and Fuller (ConAgra's predecessor) were leading manufacturers of white lead carbonate pigment and paint in the early 20th century, knowing lead dust was poisonous and that lead paint powdered and chalked.
- The Lead Industries Association (LIA), formed in 1928 and including Fuller, NL, and SWC as members, promoted white lead pigments in residential paint despite knowing about health attacks on white lead and childhood lead poisoning; they fought regulations.
- NL (from 1915 to 1950) and Fuller (at least beginning 1931) explicitly instructed consumers to use their lead paints on residential interiors through advertisements and brochures; SWC promoted lead paint for interior residential use from at least 1904.
- In 1978, lead paint was banned in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- In March 2011, The People of the State of California (plaintiff) filed a fourth amended complaint (FAC) for public nuisance in trial court against ConAgra Grocery Products Company (ConAgra), NL Industries, Inc. (NL), The Sherwin-Williams Company (SWC), Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), and 50 Doe defendants.
- Defendants' demurrer to the FAC was overruled, and summary judgment motions by NL and SWC were denied.
- The trial court struck defendants' jury demands, and the case was tried to the court in July and August 2013.
- In March 2014, the trial court issued an amended statement of decision and an amended judgment, ordering ConAgra, NL, and SWC to pay $1.15 billion into an abatement fund to remediate lead paint in homes built before 1980 in the 10 jurisdictions.
- ConAgra, NL, and SWC timely filed notices of appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does substantial evidence support the trial court's finding that lead paint manufacturers' promotions of lead paint for interior residential use were a substantial factor in causing a public nuisance in homes built after 1950, justifying an abatement order covering all homes built before 1980?
Opinions:
Majority - Mihara, J.
No, substantial evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the defendants' promotions of lead paint for interior residential use were a substantial factor in causing a public nuisance in homes built after 1950. The court affirmed the trial court's findings on actual knowledge, promotion for interior residential use, the existence of a public right (the community's collective interest in safe housing for children), abatability, and joint and several liability. However, it reversed the judgment regarding causation for homes built after 1950. The court reasoned that while defendants' pre-1951 promotions increased lead paint use during that period and were a 'substantial factor' for homes built before 1951, there was no evidence to support a reasonable inference that the impact of those promotions continued for the next 30 years to cause the use of lead paint in homes built between 1951 and 1980. The court also clarified that an abatement fund is an equitable remedy, not damages, and affirmed its use as a proper means to address prospective harm. It found the trial court erred in appointing the CLPPB as receiver without an evidentiary hearing to confirm impartiality and consent. The court rejected First Amendment, separation of powers, due process, and laches arguments from defendants, noting that their misleading promotions for a known hazardous product were not protected speech and that public nuisance law properly applied.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of public nuisance liability for manufacturers whose historical product promotions lead to widespread hazards. It affirms that actively promoting a hazardous product for a known dangerous use, rather than merely manufacturing or failing to warn, can constitute the creation of a public nuisance. The decision emphasizes the 'actual knowledge' standard and the 'substantial factor' test for causation, but it also imposes a temporal limit on causation, highlighting the need for direct evidence linking past promotions to current nuisance conditions, especially over extended periods. This ruling may influence future public nuisance claims by requiring a stronger, less speculative causal nexus, particularly concerning older product-based hazards and the duration of their impact.
