Contact Us

Statutes of Limitations
*    Denotes required field.

   * First Name 

   * Last Name 

   * Email 


Cell Phone 

Street Address 

Zip Code 



   * Please describe your case:

For verification purposes, please answer the below question:

No Yes, I agree to the Parker Waichman LLP disclaimers. Click here to review.

Yes, I would like to receive the Parker Waichman LLP monthly newsletter, InjuryAlert.

please do not fill out the field below.

Miss. Supreme Court to hear lead paint case

Sep 4, 2006 | AP The Mississippi Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a mother and son who lost a lawsuit that claimed Sherwin Williams Co. was responsible for the lead paint that made the boy sick.

The suit was filed in 2000 in Jefferson County Circuit Court by Shermeker Pollard of Fayette on behalf of herself and her son, Trellvion Gaines, who was then 9.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether Trellvion and Pollard waited too long to file their lawsuit. There is no timetable for the justices to decide the case.

However, their decision could affect other cases involving underage plaintiffs, said an attorney who represents Pollard and Gaines.

"This case is important because it will determine how the courts will apply the minor savings statute, and when the statute will run against the minor," the plantiffs attorney said.

A trial judge ruled in favor of the Cleveland, Ohio-based paint manufacturer in June 2003.

Sherwin Williams contended that Pollard knew about Trellvion's alleged injuries in 1994 and had only until 1997 to pursue the lawsuit under Mississippi's statute of limitations.

The state Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision in 2005, siding with the paint manufacturer.

"They indicated that the mother had learned that Trellvion had been exposed to lead paint in 1994 when one of his elevated blood level tests was taken. The mother would have had three years to file her individual claim from the date she knew she had injury," Porter said of the appeals court ruling.

However, the plantiffs attorney believes the statute of limitation still covers Trellvion.

"Generally speaking, you have three years from the date that a guardian was appointed. In this case, his mother was appointed guardian on the same date that the lawsuit was filed," Porter said.

The statute of limitation issue is not one lawyers in other states often face when litigating lead poisoning cases, said one Boston attorney, who has argued several cases against the paint manufacturing industry.

"When it comes to kids in most states, in particular in the states in which I work, the statute doesn't begin to run until the child reaches the age of maturity," the Boston attorney said.

In the Pollard lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege Trellvion ingested lead paint chips while living in a house that had been occupied by Pollard's mother, Doris Gaines, since the 1970s.

Lead paint was banned in the United States in 1978, but can be found in some older homes and rundown housing.

The lawsuit alleged that "Trellvion was exposed to lead dust, chips and other debris which resulted from the sanding, scraping and other removal of lead paint from the house, which occurred based on the required procedure for application of Sherwin Williams' non-lead based paint."

The suit also alleged that Trellvion became sick from his exposure to the lead paint and that Pollard suffered mental anguish in addition to the medical expenses for the child.

Other articles
Parker Waichman Accolades And Reviews Best Lawyers Find Us On Avvo