Lexplug logoLexplug

Childs v. Purll

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
882 A.2d 227 (2005)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landlord who has notice that a child under the age of eight will reside in a leased property is on constructive notice of any lead paint hazard due to housing regulations that impose an affirmative duty to maintain the premises in a lead-free condition.


Facts:

  • Between December 1991 and October 1995, Marcella Childs and her two minor children, Tiffany (age 1) and Robbie (age 3), rented an apartment owned by Samuel and Kathy Purll and managed by Willoughby Real Estate Company.
  • The lease agreements identified the children by name as occupants and listed their ages at the start of the tenancy.
  • At the time Childs moved in, she complained about chipping paint, and the landlord promptly repainted the premises.
  • Childs did not complain again of flaking or peeling paint during her tenancy, though she did request repainting for wear and tear, which was done.
  • The landlords and management company never received an official lead paint violation notice from the District of Columbia regarding the property.
  • In August 1993, approximately two years into the tenancy, medical tests revealed that both children had elevated blood lead levels, indicating lead poisoning.

Procedural Posture:

  • Marcella Childs filed suit against the Purlls (owners), Willoughby Real Estate Company, and its principals in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (the trial court).
  • The complaint alleged negligence, strict liability, and violations of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
  • After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
  • The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, ruling that the negligence claim failed because the defendants lacked actual or constructive notice of a lead paint hazard.
  • Childs (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (the appellate court).

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a landlord's knowledge that a child under eight will reside in a leased property, combined with a housing regulation requiring such premises to be lead-free, constitute constructive notice of a lead paint hazard for the purpose of a negligence claim?


Opinions:

Majority - Glickman, Associate Judge

Yes. A landlord's knowledge that a child under eight will be a resident, coupled with a specific housing regulation requiring such premises to be lead-free, satisfies the notice requirement for a negligence claim. The trial court erred in focusing only on whether the landlord had notice of peeling or chipping paint. The District of Columbia Housing Regulation § 707.3 imposes a proactive, affirmative duty on landlords to maintain premises free of lead hazards when they know children under eight reside there. This regulation effectively puts the landlord on constructive notice of the potential hazard, creating an antecedent duty to ascertain whether the premises are lead-free. The violation of this public safety regulation constitutes evidence of negligence, and because the defendants did not demonstrate they took reasonable steps to comply, they were not entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim. The court affirmed, however, that the Consumer Protection Procedures Act claims were properly dismissed because the version of the act applicable at the time did not cover landlord-tenant relations or tortious personal injuries.



Analysis:

This decision significantly alters the landscape of landlord liability for lead poisoning in the District of Columbia. It lowers the plaintiff's burden by establishing that constructive notice can be fulfilled by the landlord's awareness of a young child's tenancy, rather than requiring proof that the landlord knew about a specific physical defect like peeling paint. This imposes a proactive duty on landlords to inspect for and abate lead paint when renting to families with young children, shifting the focus from remedying visible defects to preventing the underlying hazard. The ruling makes it easier for tenants to bring negligence claims based on regulatory violations and will likely influence landlord practices regarding property maintenance and tenant screening disclosures.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Childs v. Purll (2005) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Childs v. Purll