Childs v. Purll, 882 A.2d 227 (2005)

Citation: Childs v. Purll, 882 A.2d 227 (2005)
Parent Document: Childs v. Purll, 882 A.2d 227 (2005)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2005-09-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2081609/childs-v-purll/ ↗

Full Text

1,230 chars

For the foregoing reasons, we partially reverse the trial court’s award of summary judgment to the defendants and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. Specifically, we hold that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment based on them lack of notice of a lead paint hazard in appellants’ apartment, because the defendants were on notice that children under eight years of age would be occupying the apartment, and the Housing Regulations impose an affirmative obligation on landlords to maintain lead-free premises where such children reside. We further hold that the individual Willoughby defendants were not entitled to summary judgment merely because they acted in the name of their corporation and the corporation was not created or used to perpetrate fraud. In all other respects, we uphold the trial court’s judgment. We agree with the trial court that appellants’ consumer protection claims are not authorized by the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, both because that Act is inapplicable to landlord-tenant relations and because appellants are seeking damages for personal injuries of a tortious nature. We do not address the trial court’s other rulings, relating to strict *241

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text