There are a couple of things in the article that are "perplexing" to me.
1 —" A Superior Court judge in San Jose today ruled that three major companies must pay $1.1 billion to remove lead paint from decades-old homes that may have poisoned children in eight California counties and the cities of San Diego and Oakland. "
"May have poisoned" children?? These companies are being fined on "may have"?? What ever happened to innocent till proven guilty? The court is prosecuting on may have??
2 "Cotchett said the judge sided with the plaintiff’s argument that Sherwin Williams, NL and ConAgra used lead paint inside the homes, some built back in the 1930s and 1940s, knowing that the paint harmed people, especially children under six who suffered from lead poisoning"
If it was public knowledge back in the 30 and 40s that lead paint was harmful, then why did it take the government until 1978 to ban it from being used in lead paint?? IMHO I can see where if a company continued to put lead in paint after it was banned in 1978 there would be liability, but if there was knowledge it was harmful in the 30 and 40s and it wasn't banned then, doesn't the government have just as much responsibility in that they didn't ban it sooner??