Every renter is notified that any building built before 1977 (I may be wrong on the year, but I’m close) may contain lead paint. It’s up to the parents to ensure their children don’t eat enough of it to cause damage. This ruling is bogus.
I agree with you 100%. I am 30 years old and I am sure I was exposed to lead paint but I am not sueing and I most certainly didn’t develop any learning disabilities. This is another case where someone is trying to find a meal ticket.
How about when the renter can’t exactly afford to live anywhere else? You might want to sue someone since I sense dyslexia due to the spelling of “suing”.
I wonder if the courts considered the possibility of other prenatal issues that could have caused birth defects. Off the top of my head, did this person drink or smoke, along with what sort of work did this person do and were they potentially exposed to chemicals during pregnancy? It could have been a myriad of factors, including bad genes.
A question I have to ask is did the owner of the building not repaint between tenents or at least keep up the maintence?
Does the landlord have a responsibility to make sure his apartments are safe for people to live in? This landlord could have easily painted over the lead paint to make it look nice so no one questioned it. I wouldn’t think to do that and I bet many wouldn’t as well.
The office building I work in was built pre 1900. Should I speak with the current owner to make sure everything is to code, or is that my responsibility to make sure the electrical, elevators, stairs, paint… are not hazards for me to work around?
caffiend, it’s pretty easy to test for lead as it bio-accumulates in the system (the bones if I remember right, but that could be mercury). There is no doubt when it’s lead poisoning.
Timmy, the only way to get lead poisoning is to ingest it – you have to eat the paint. Getting the paint on your sking won’t do it, inhaling the fumes won’t do it. The other option is to sand-blast the paint and inhale the particulates created.
Landlords are legally required in all 50 states and DC to notify tenants the building may have lead paint if it was built before a certain year. Most buildings don’t have lead paint in them because it’s been removed during normal course of turning a space. It’s the parents’ responsibility to ensure their kids don’t eat paint. I’ve made it so far 28 years without ever eating paint, glue, or other chemicals people seem to have a problem keeping their kids from eating. Then again my parents told me not to eat paint or glue or other bad nasty things.
LB,
Since you mentioned you have gone 28 years without eating glue, and didn’t mention any kids, I will assume you don’t have any. I have a 15 month old and it is a full time job keeping an eye on her! Even though I try to keep a clean house, every night I find her munching on something that isn’t edible. That isn’t a lack of parenting skills; that is kids being kids!
Do you think every landlord is responsible enough to notify renters of potential hazards? Some do, some don’t. Especially if it has an adverse effect on renting a room!
If there was no pre-existing medical condition AND the landlord didn’t notify / covered up the lead paint AND it is proven that the disabilities are attributable to the afore mentioned peeling lead paint, I agree with the award.
come on LB…..normal kids don’t “munch” on doors, doorframes, and window sills….that’s where the paint comes from. The learning disabilities are most likely Mexincanitis.
The fact that the two companies made a settlement rather than take it to a jury makes me think there is not a real strong case defensible case here. It’s too bad the underwriters on these two policies did not question the presence of lead, a problem the insurance industry has been well aware of for a long time, and require remediation prior to granting coverage. If they had perhaps this tragedy could have been prevented. This speaks volumes for the importance of a company providing a professional training program for its underwriters.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Every renter is notified that any building built before 1977 (I may be wrong on the year, but I’m close) may contain lead paint. It’s up to the parents to ensure their children don’t eat enough of it to cause damage. This ruling is bogus.
I agree with you 100%. I am 30 years old and I am sure I was exposed to lead paint but I am not sueing and I most certainly didn’t develop any learning disabilities. This is another case where someone is trying to find a meal ticket.
Meal ticket??!!
How about when the renter can’t exactly afford to live anywhere else? You might want to sue someone since I sense dyslexia due to the spelling of “suing”.
I wonder if the courts considered the possibility of other prenatal issues that could have caused birth defects. Off the top of my head, did this person drink or smoke, along with what sort of work did this person do and were they potentially exposed to chemicals during pregnancy? It could have been a myriad of factors, including bad genes.
A question I have to ask is did the owner of the building not repaint between tenents or at least keep up the maintence?
Does the landlord have a responsibility to make sure his apartments are safe for people to live in? This landlord could have easily painted over the lead paint to make it look nice so no one questioned it. I wouldn’t think to do that and I bet many wouldn’t as well.
The office building I work in was built pre 1900. Should I speak with the current owner to make sure everything is to code, or is that my responsibility to make sure the electrical, elevators, stairs, paint… are not hazards for me to work around?
caffiend, it’s pretty easy to test for lead as it bio-accumulates in the system (the bones if I remember right, but that could be mercury). There is no doubt when it’s lead poisoning.
Timmy, the only way to get lead poisoning is to ingest it – you have to eat the paint. Getting the paint on your sking won’t do it, inhaling the fumes won’t do it. The other option is to sand-blast the paint and inhale the particulates created.
Landlords are legally required in all 50 states and DC to notify tenants the building may have lead paint if it was built before a certain year. Most buildings don’t have lead paint in them because it’s been removed during normal course of turning a space. It’s the parents’ responsibility to ensure their kids don’t eat paint. I’ve made it so far 28 years without ever eating paint, glue, or other chemicals people seem to have a problem keeping their kids from eating. Then again my parents told me not to eat paint or glue or other bad nasty things.
LB,
Since you mentioned you have gone 28 years without eating glue, and didn’t mention any kids, I will assume you don’t have any. I have a 15 month old and it is a full time job keeping an eye on her! Even though I try to keep a clean house, every night I find her munching on something that isn’t edible. That isn’t a lack of parenting skills; that is kids being kids!
Do you think every landlord is responsible enough to notify renters of potential hazards? Some do, some don’t. Especially if it has an adverse effect on renting a room!
If there was no pre-existing medical condition AND the landlord didn’t notify / covered up the lead paint AND it is proven that the disabilities are attributable to the afore mentioned peeling lead paint, I agree with the award.
The year lead paint was banned for habitational properties was 1978.
To suffer any permanent injuries, you would need to ingest quite a bit of lead paint chips.
I agree that there may be many reasons for the problems with learning that these children now suffer from.
I agree that lawsuits such as these are not fact based, but more emotional.
I thought this issue disappeared, but I was wrong.
come on LB…..normal kids don’t “munch” on doors, doorframes, and window sills….that’s where the paint comes from. The learning disabilities are most likely Mexincanitis.
The fact that the two companies made a settlement rather than take it to a jury makes me think there is not a real strong case defensible case here. It’s too bad the underwriters on these two policies did not question the presence of lead, a problem the insurance industry has been well aware of for a long time, and require remediation prior to granting coverage. If they had perhaps this tragedy could have been prevented. This speaks volumes for the importance of a company providing a professional training program for its underwriters.