Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:10

From: Chaim Saiman

Subject: Public Nuisance Theory

Jason, not exactly what you want, but this summer the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued a major opinion on (lack of) liability by Sherwin Williams and other lead paint producers. The court engaged in a somewhat detailed discussion of the doctrine, (though this is courtspeak, not scholarship).

Case is State of RI v. Sherwin Williams.

chaim

Chaim Saiman
Assistant Professor
Villanova Law School
610.519.3296
view my research at http://ssrn.com/author=549545

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Neyers 
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:04 PM
Subject: ODG: Public Nuisance Theory

Dear Colleagues:

I have had several people over the years tell me that the dominant theory of public nuisance is that it is a hold-over from an earlier age when the administrative state was not as well-developed. On this theory public nuisance was necessary since the state did not have adequate resources to protect public rights, but is largely unnecessary now given the expansion of the state. Does anyone know of an article or textbook discussion which clearly lays out this dominant theory? Most of the discussions I have found skirt around the justification for the tort.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>