A New York state appeals court has unanimously reversed a decision that allowed plaintiffs in a lead-based paint poisoning case to seek damages under the so-called "market share" theory of liability.

WASHINGTON - A New York state appeals court has unanimously reversed a decision by a state judge in Buffalo that had allowed plaintiffs in a lead-based paint poisoning case to pursue their argument that companies can be held liable for damages under the so-called "market share" theory of liability. The ruling, seen as a victory for defendants in such cases, reverses a lower-court decision that companies can be held liable for any damages caused by use of a product manufactured within a given time period, according to those companies' proportionate share of the market at that time.

"This rational decision is a welcome pail of water thrown on one of the fires that have been set by plaintiffs' attorneys, whose chance of success is predicated on courts' willingness to adopt novel and unfounded theories of liability and recovery," said Tom Graves, vice president and general counsel of the National Paint & Coatings Association.

In ordering the lower court to reverse its decision, the appellate court sharply distinguished the lead-poisoning situation from a case involving use of the drug DES during pregnancy, which resulted in a rare form of cancer found in female offspring. A Buffalo state trial court judge had cited the DES case in issuing a ruling that had allowed plaintiffs in the lead-poisoning case to proceed with their argument that the market-share liability theory should be applied to lead-pigment manufacturers.