Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (94)

Full Text

1,530 chars
In affirming the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the negligence count, the Richwind court first stated that, pursuant to § 17.6 of the Restatement (Second) of Property, “a private cause of action in a landlord/tenant context can arise from a violation of any statutory duty or implied warranty created by the Baltimore City Code.” Id., 671-72. The court recognized that the following provisions in the Baltimore city code were directly implicated by the plaintiffs’ action for the injuries caused by the lead-based paint: (1) § 702, which “provides that every building in Baltimore City which is occupied as a dwelling is to be ‘kept in good repair, in safe condition, and fit for human habitation’ (2) § 703 (2) (c), which “defines one of the standards for good repair as . . . ‘[a]ll walls, ceilings, woodwork, doors and windows shall be kept clean and free of any flaking, loose or peeling paint and paper’ and (3) § 706, which provides that “ ‘[n]o paint shall be used for interior painting of any dwelling . . . unless the paint is free from any lead pigment.’ ” The court further stated that “[t]he implied warranty of habitability established by §§ 702 and 703 necessarily includes flaking, loose or peeling lead-based paint within the scope of hazardous conditions that render the premises unfit for human habitation. Thus, a landlord leasing property in Baltimore City is under a statutory obligation to correct *387such a hazardous condition even in the absence of a contractual duty to do so.” Id., 670-71.