Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Citation
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Parent Document
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-01-30
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
Full Text
1,293 charsThe plaintiffs, Thomas Gore and Wanda Copeland, on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor son, Kendall Copeland, brought this action against the defendants, People’s Savings Bank and M.S.B. Real Estate Corporation, claiming that the defendants were liable for the damages caused by their son’s exposure to lead-based paint in the defendants’ building. “The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In 1984, the plaintiffs and Kendall Copeland moved into an apartment located at 400 Atlantic Street in Bridgeport. On May 22,1985, Audrey Gaines, aprogram coordinator for the Bridgeport department of health, inspected the plaintiffs’ apartment for the presence of lead. Gaines tested the surfaces of the apartment using a portable X-ray machine, which measured the amount *222of lead within the paint on the surfaces. This testing revealed that some surfaces contained more than five tenths of 1 percent lead by weight, the federal statutory standard then codified in 42 U.S.C. § 4841 and incorporated by § 47a-8. On the basis of the results of this inspection, Gaines sent notification to the landlord and requested that it abate the lead in the plaintiffs’ apartment. On August 26,1985, Gaines reinspected the apartment and determined that all lead hazards had been abated.