Recent Developments in Lead Paint Litigation Brian S. Brown
When I tell people that the firm where I work is a practice that limits its cases to representing children who have been exposed to lead-based paint, I am often confronted with the question: “What, is that still going on?” Unfortunately, the answer is “yes.” Childhood lead-paint poisoning is still a major problem in Baltimore and other cities with older housing
stock. Te existence of this housing, together
with landlords’ continued disobedience of the relevant housing code provisions concerning the maintenance of their properties, results in childhood lead poisoning. Lead poisoning causes permanent brain-damage, loss of IQ points, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder (ADD), and a host of other cognitive deficits and behavioral issues. Children who have been exposed to lead are more likely to be involved with the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Tis article will examine recent developments in lead-paint litigation.
Like the common-law itself, lead-paint litigation and the law that governs it, is ever evolving.
Some Background A child’s cause of action for lead-paint poisoning is usually
founded on two theories of liability – traditional common law negligence and violations of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act (Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Art. §§ 13-101, et seq.). In Baltimore City, where the vast majority of lead-poisoning claims are filed, both claims are premised upon violations of the Baltimore City Housing Code, which requires that a landlord maintain his or her property in accordance with certain minimal standards. All a landlord must do in order to comply with the code is ensure that his or her properties “are fit for human habitation.” For the negligence claims, a violation of the Code is evidence of negligence. Tis is the same common-law principle that applies in other negligence actions such as auto torts, where a defendant’s alleged violation of a provision of the Transportation Article provides evidence of negligence. For the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claims, the violation(s) of the Housing Code must exist at the inception of the lease.
The Cap – Does it apply to claims brought to Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act? Even if it applies, which cap applies?
In Green v. N.B.S* 409 Md. 528, ___ A.2d ___ (2009),
Kelly Green sued N.B.S. and others alleging that she was exposed to lead and injured at residential real property owned and maintained by the Defendants. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted both of the above-mentioned theories of liability. After the trial judge granted the Plaintiff ’s Motion for Judgment against all Defendants as to both theories, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $2,300,000. As there was no evidence introduced of economic loss, the entire verdict was for non-economic damages. Te trial judge reduced the jury’s verdict to $515,000 pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Pro. Art., §§11-108, et seq., Maryland’s Cap on non- economic damages. Te Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, asserting that the Cap did not apply to claims brought pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act.
Riverside Printing Services “Serving the legal profession for over 30 years”
• Letterheads and envelopes • Business cards • Pleading paper • Last will and testaments • Attorney time control • Laser checks, all systems, all banks • Announcements • Document covers • Presentation folders and brochures • Advertising and mailings
Phone: 410.360.1116 Toll Free: 800.419.0050 Fax: 410.360.1114
1931 Locust Road Pasadena, MD 21122
riverprinting@aol.com
www.RiversidePrintingInc.com Trial Reporter / Winter 2010 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68