What is a Landlord's Duty Regarding Lead Paint?

In Ohio, landlords have no duty to protect a tenant against lead poisoning from lead paint at the residence if the landlord did not know about the problem. But if the landlord can be shown to have notice, then the landlord can be held responsible if he has not fixed the problem.

There are two types of notice though. One is actual notice, evidence of which might be proven by a video tape of the landlord being told about the problem or a copy of a letter sent to the landlord warning about problems with old chipping paint. But there is also what is known as "constructive" notice where the court determines that the landlord should have known about the problem.

In the case of Richardson v. Boes (2008) 179 Ohio App.3d 418, the trial court dismissed the tenant's claim against the landlord on behalf of a child who had gotten lead poisoning from chipped paint at the rented residential premises. But Ohio's Sixth District Court of Appeals held that the landlord could not escape liability when the tenant showed that the landlord had constructive notice of the problem.

The Richardson Court held that the term "constructive notice" refers to "that which the law regards as sufficient to give notice and is regarded as a substitute for actual notice or knowledge." The Court held that constructive notice of an unsafe condition may be proved by showing that the unsafe condition existed in such a manner that it could or should have been discovered, that it existed for a sufficient length of time to have been discovered, and that if it had been discovered it would have created a reasonable apprehension of a potential danger or an invasion of private rights.

The Court further held that while notice that paint is chipping and peeling, in itself, is not tantamount to notification of the presence of lead-based paint in the premises, when combined with other evidence demonstrating the landlord's knowledge that lead-based paint probably exists on the premises, it is relevant to the question whether the landlord knew or should have known of the hazard of lead-based paint exposure on his premises. Richardson at 424.425. Since the landlord admitted that he understood and knew that lead-based paint was found in older homes, such as the one he rented to the tenant, which might pose a health hazard to children. As such, the Court found that he had sufficient constructive knowledge that the trial court's dismissal of the case on summary judgment was inappropriate.

If you found this information helpful and are looking for more information or would like to support this website, please consider ordering a copy of our book on Ohio landlord tenant law.

Disclaimer: The information provided on ohiolandlordtenant.com is not intended to be legal advice, but general information related to legal issues commonly encountered. The law in your state may be different from that discussed here. The facts in your case may be different too.

Having trouble finding what you are looking for, then search our site below:

	www.ohiolandlordtenant.com