State by State BreakdownOhio Adams v. Hilmer
Location: Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Capsule Summary: This was a personal injury case brought by a minor and her parents. Update: In March 1998, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the claims against former lead pigment manufacturers. City of Akron, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On October 4, 2006 the City of Akron filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action alleged were public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. Update: On November 7, 2006, the City of Akron voluntary dismissed the case. City of Athens, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Athens County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On April 2, 2007, the City of Athens filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages.The causes of action alleged were public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. Update: On December 4, 2007, after defendants filed a motion to the City of Athens voluntarily dismissed the case. City of Canton, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On December 27, 2006, the City of Canton filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action include public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. Update: On November 2, 2007, after defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the City of Canton voluntarily dismissed the case. City of Cincinnati, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On December 27, 2006, the City of Cincinnati filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action include public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. Update: On June 11, 2007, after defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the City of Cincinnati voluntarily dismissed the case. City of Columbus, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On December 15, 2006, the City of Columbus filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action include public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. The case was consolidated with the State Attorney General’s action on May 30, 2007. Update: On July 8, 2008, after Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the City of Columbus voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. To view the Defendants' news release on the voluntarily dismissal, click here. City of Dayton, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On April 2, 2007, the City of Dayton filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action alleged were public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. Update: On November 28, 2007, after defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the City of Dayton voluntarily dismissed the case. City of East Cleveland, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On September 29, 2006, the City of Cincinnati filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action included public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. East Cleveland is a suburb of Cleveland, with a population of less than 30,000On September 29, 2006, the City of Cincinnati filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action include public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. East Cleveland is a surburb of Cleveland, with a population of less than 30,000. Update: On June 8, 2007, after defendants argued their motion to dismiss, the City of East Cleveland voluntarily dismissed the caseOn June 8, 2007, the City of East Cleveland voluntarily dismissed the case. City of Lancaster, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On October 17, 2006, the City of Cincinnati filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action alleged were public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. Update: On November 20, 2007, after defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the City of Lancaster voluntarily dismissed the case. City of Massillon, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On March 19, 2007, the City of Massillon filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action alleged were public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. Update: On November 2, 2007, after defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the City of Massillon voluntarily dismissed the case. City of Toledo, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Lucas County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On September 29, 2006, the City of Toledo filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action include public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. Update: The Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County granted defendants' motion to dismiss on December 12, 2007. In its ruling, the Court said: “Assuming, for purposes of argument, that Plaintiff’s public nuisance claim was not time barred, the Court finds that the claim still fails under the tenets set forth in Sutowski v. Eli Lilly & Company. In Sutowski, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that market share liability was not an available theory of recovery in a products liability action in Ohio. The plaintiff must establish a causal connection between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries, which necessitates identification of the particular tortfeasor. Also, the Court said “this Court finds that public nuisance actions…were intended to be abrogated by the Ohio Product Liability Act.” Key Document: City of Youngstown, Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Mahoning County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On April 2, 2007, the City of Youngstown filed suit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The causes of action alleged were public nuisance, concert of action, unjust enrichment and indemnity. Update: On November 19, 2007, after defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the City of Youngstown voluntarily dismissed the case. Jackson v. The Glidden Co. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio Capsule Summary: This case was filed in 1992 as a purported class action suit brought on behalf of children in Ohio with elevated blood levels. On July 18, 1996, the court dismissed the injury to property and enterprise liability claims. On April 4, 2001, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. In doing so, the court pointed to the importance of many individual fact issues, such as the role landlords play in creating lead hazards, the defendants' lack of knowledge about adverse health effects in the early part of the century about dangers of lead paint and the plaintiffs' exposure to lead from sources other than lead paint. Update: Defendants moved for summary judgment in December 2002. The motion was granted on January 20, 2006. The plaintiffs appealed that ruling in February 2006. On January 25, 2007, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District Cuyahoga County, affirmed the trial court's decision. The Court rejected both market share and alternative liability. Because plaintiffs could not prove that defendants proximately caused their injuries, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ remaining claims, including nuisance. On March 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ohio Supreme Court seeking discretionary review of the Court of Appeals decision. On June 20, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court declined review, effectively ending this case. Key Document: State of Ohio v. Sherwin-Williams Company, et al. Location: Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio Capsule Summary: On April 2, 2007, the State of Ohio filed a public nuisance lawsuit in Ohio state court seeking funding for abatement, public education, screening and punitive damages. The case was consolidated with the City of Columbus, Ohio action on May 30, 2007. On January 28, 2008, the State of Ohio case was removed to Federal Court on the basis of Federal Officer jurisdiction. The State moved to remand the case back to state court. On February 25, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Update: On February 6, 2009, Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. Click here to see the AG's news release. |
|
|
This Site Is Sponsored By Companies That Are Involved in Lead Pigment Litigation |