|
|
 |
 |
5.17.2001
'Innocent
owner' law offers some protection to landlords
Before filing a civil lawsuit against a landlord to seek compensation
for a lead-poisoned child, lawyer Robert J. McConnell says he always ensures
first that five key criteria are met by the plaintiffs.
Only if he gets an affirmative answer to the following five questions
will McConnell proceed with a suit:
• Is the child provably lead poisoned?
• Was the apartment the source of the lead poisoning?
• Did the landlord know, or should he or she have known, about the hazard?
• Is the lead poisoning causing demonstrable problems for the child?
• Does the landlord have insurance or sufficient assets to make a suit
worthwhile?
If a landlord doesn't have assets, McConnell says, then he can't afford
to invest the several years of preparation it takes to bring a suit from
start to finish.
Even if all those criteria are met, McConnell says he sometimes gets thwarted
by the state's so-called "innocent owner" statute.
Passed in 1991 as part of the state's comprehensive Lead Poisoning Prevention
Act, the innocent owner provision comes into play if someone is lead poisoned.
It limits the civil liability of a landlord to the costs of reducing the
lead hazards until they fall within state guidelines. That precludes poisoned
victims from winning any compensation for their injuries.
The owner loses the innocent owner defense if he or she has been cited
for violations and refuses to respond within 90 days or has been cited
on at least three other properties.
There have been several efforts in recent years to eliminate the innocent
owner provision of the law. Critics say it gives landlords an excuse to
do nothing until a child is poisoned.
But landlords and representatives of the real estate industry have successfully
lobbied to block any changes.
CLICK
HERE FOR PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
