The court first rejected the manufacturers’ curious argument that (because the plaintiffs allegedly had an “adequate remedy” against their landlords) the Constitution barred the plaintiffs’ claim against them, and then concluded that lead paint compounds were factually similar enough to DES that the market-share-type “risk-contribution” approach adopted in Collins v. Eli Lilly, 342 N.W.2d 37 (Wis. 1984), could be utilized in the establishment of lead poisoning claims. Thomas v. Mallett, No. 2003AP1528, 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 397 (Wis. July 15, 2005).
Leave a Reply