Hardy v. Griffin, 8903-3097
| Decision Date | 04 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 8903-3097,8903-3097 |
| Citation | 41 Conn.Supp. 283,569 A.2d 49 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Patricia HARDY v. John GRIFFIN, et al. |
Jerome Frank Legal Services Clinic at Yale University, New Haven, for plaintiff.
La Sala, Walsh & Wicklow, New Haven, for defendants.
The plaintiff, Patricia Hardy, brought this action on behalf of her six year old child, Verron Hardy, claiming that he suffered severe and permanent brain damage from his exposure to, and ingestion of, lead-based paint.
From about November 1, 1984, to August 1, 1986, the plaintiff occupied a housing unit at 18 Arthur Street in New Haven. During this time, Verron was found to have abnormally high levels of lead in his blood. The named defendant and the defendant Leona A. Griffin, were the owners of 18 Arthur Street and leased the premises to Patricia Hardy.
In this case of first impression, the plaintiff has claimed damages on a theory of strict liability because of the defendants' alleged violation of both state statutes and a city ordinance. The failure to keep the premises free of lead-based paint is claimed to be the violation and is also the basis for a claim made under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
The defendants have denied any knowledge of the existence of such paint, suggesting that if there were any, it existed prior to their purchase of the property. They further deny the use of any lead-based paint on the premises.
From the evidence the plaintiff presented at trial, the court concludes that Verron suffers from lead paint poisoning and that this condition was a result of his exposure to the lead-based paint present at 18 Arthur Street.
The named defendant admitted that in January, 1987, he received a notice from the city of New Haven advising him of the presence of lead paint at 18 Arthur Street. On prior occasions, he had been put on notice that repairs to this unit were required. The plaintiff testified that she had seen Verron eating paint chips, which prompted her to have him tested for the presence of lead in his blood. She also stated that the apartment was painted by the defendants but that the previous coat of paint was not scraped. This underlying coat was described as "thick, chipped and peeling."
The named defendant's suggestion that someone "set him up" by spraying on lead paint is entitled to no credence. As for the testimony offered by the defendants that Verron was observed eating paint out of a can, their own evidence as to the dates of the termination of the manufacture and sale of lead-based paint in Connecticut renders this event, even if it is accepted by this court as having occurred, to be of dubious significance.
In support of the strict liability theory, the plaintiff cites General Statutes § 47a-8 and the New Haven Code of General Ordinances. Section 47a-8 provides as follows: "The presence of paint which does not conform to federal standards as required in accordance with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, Chapter 63 of the Social Security Act, as amended, or of cracked, chipped, blistered, flaking, loose or peeling paint which constitutes a health hazard on accessible surfaces in any dwelling unit, tenement or any real property intended for human habitation shall be construed to render such dwelling unit, tenement or real property unfit for human habitation and shall constitute a noncompliance with subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 47a-7." Section 47a-7(a)(2) imposes an affirmative duty upon landlords to "make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition...." The New Haven Code of General Ordinances sets a stricter standard than the federal standards referred to in § 47a-8. New Haven Code of General Ordinances § 16-49 et seq.
The plaintiff cites Panaroni v. Johnson, 158 Conn. 92, 256 A.2d 246 (1969). In that case, the Supreme Court stated (p. 101, 256 A.2d 246): "The violation of an ordinance enacted for the protection of the public is negligence as a matter of law." Panaroni also involved the New Haven housing code and the court found that the plaintiff there was a member of the class for whose protection the New Haven Code of General Ordinances was enacted. This court similarly concludes that the plaintiff in the present case is a member of the class for whose protection the provision of the housing code referred to above was enacted.
The defendants' breach, therefore, of the duty imposed by the New Haven Code of General Ordinances to maintain rental premises free of lead paint (or not to rent premises containing lead paint) renders them liable for the injuries incurred by Verron Hardy. On the facts here, the court further finds that the defendants are liable for Verron's condition by virtue of their negligent failure to keep the premises free of lead paint and because they rented the premises when they should have known of the presence of lead paint.
An examination of lead paint poisoning cases in other jurisdictions leads this court to the conclusion that the decision reached above, although one of first impression, is consistent with those reached by courts that have decided such cases in other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gore v. People's Sav. Bank
...Court recognized that the same conclusion regarding strict liability had previously been reached in the case of Hardy v. Griffin, 41 Conn.Supp. 283, 569 A.2d 49 (1989), although the Hardy court had analyzed the issue differently. Gore v. People's Savings Bank, supra at 136 n. 11, 644 A.2d 9......
-
Benik v. Hatcher
...v. Jiminez, 127 Ill.2d 615, 136 Ill. Dec. 585, 545 N.E.2d 109 (1989); Tillman v. Johnson, 612 So.2d 70 (La.1993); Hardy v. Griffin, 41 Conn.Supp. 283, 569 A.2d 49 (1989); Norwood v. Lazarus, 634 S.W.2d 584 (Mo.App.1982); Underwood v. Risman, 414 Mass. 96, 605 N.E.2d 832 (1993), which he say......
-
Tillman v. Johnson, CA
...408 Mass. 792, 563 N.E.2d 684 (1990) held that 'Lead Paint Prevention Act' imposed tort liability on landlords; Hardy v. Griffin, 41 Conn.Supp. 283, 569 A.2d 49 (1989); Strict Liability imposed by statute; Garcia v. Jiminez, 184 Ill.App.3d 107, 132 Ill.Dec. 550, 539 N.E.2d 1356 (2 Dist.1989......
-
Gore v. People's Sav. Bank
...during which the landlord has failed to comply with subsection (a) of section 47a-7."11 In the Superior Court case of Hardy v. Griffin, 41 Conn.Sup. 283, 569 A.2d 49 (1989), the court rendered judgment in favor of the minor plaintiff under a theory of strict liability brought pursuant to §§......
-
Whatever Happened to Landlord-tenant Law?
...since the legislature disagreed with the strict liability interpretation that courts applied to the legislation. See Hardy v. Griffin, 569 A.2d 49 (Conn. Super Ct. 1989). 61. See, e.g., Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., 672 N.E.2d 135 (N.Y. 1996)(recognizing a private tort action ba......
-
Lead-based Paint: Regulation and Liability
...held landlords liable under statutes requiring landlords to keep their property in good repair or habitable. See, e.g., Hardy v. Griffin, 569 A.2d 49 (Conn. 1989) (landlord strictly liable to six-year-old tenant who ate paint chips over twenty-one-month period; liability arose as a result o......