Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)

Citation: Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)
Parent Document: Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1995-10-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7896280/gore-v-peoples-savings-bank/ ↗

Full Text

1,234 chars

In the specific circumstances of a case such as this, in which the plaintiffs claim that the landlord’s violation of § 47a-8 caused damages resulting from their minor son’s ingestion of lead-based paint in the apartment, we believe that the policies underlying the negligence per se doctrine apply and, therefore, we agree with the Appellate Court’s conclusion that § 47a-8 imposes on landlords a standard of care the violation of which constitutes negligence per se. In deciding whether the legislature intended to provide for such statutory liability, we look to the language of the statute and to the legislative history and purposes underlying the provision’s enactment. See, e.g., Connecticut National Bank v. Giacomi, 233 Conn. 304, 318-19, 659 A.2d 1166 (1995); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Hillcrest Associates, 233 Conn. 153, 163, 659 A.2d 138 (1995); Lauer v. Zoning Commission, 220 Conn. 455, 460, 600 A.2d 310 (1991). In determining whether a particular statutory provision imposes on landlords a duty such that a violation of *381that provision supports an action in negligence, we review the statutory scheme in its entirety, including the design of the scheme as enacted. See Panaroni v. Johnson, supra, 158 Conn. 101.

Other Sections in This Document (94)

Full Text