Case Summary

4201 REVIEW DENIED Based on a claim that manufacturers of lead-containing paint engaged in deceptive marketing practices, the public attorney may maintain a public nuisance action seeking abatement against but may not maintain a public nuisance action for damage to public properties; if the lead-containing paint was used in plaintiff's buildings with its consent, plaintiff's lack of knowledge regarding the extent of the dangers associated with its use, even though allegedly induced by defendant's deceptive practices, does not vitiate that consent to give rise to an action for trespass to land; product liability actions on theories of negligence and strict liability do not accrue without some physical damage, and the economic losses occasioned by the need to remediate dangers resulting from the presence of lead paint does not satisfy that requirement; a product liability action for fraud may be brought for economic loss alone, and the statute of limitations does not begin running until plaintiff discovers or reasonably should discover the harm and its tortious cause; the statute of limitations on an action under the Unfair Competition Law begins to run, at the latest, when defendant stops engaging in its allegedly deceptive practice.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA v ARCO (Lead Paint Deception) 137 CA4 292 [See: CivC 3479, 3480; City of Modesto v Superior Court 119 CA4 28, T/AT 7/04; City of SD v US Gypsum 30 CA4 575, T/AT 1/95; Fibreboard v Hartford 16 CA4 492, T/AT 8/93; Aas v Superior Court 24 C4 627, T/AT 1/01; Robinson Helicopter v Dana 34 C4 979, T/AT 2/03]