Brooks v. Lewin Realty III, Inc., 378 Md. 70

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that, in a Baltimore City lead-paint negligence action based on violations of the Housing Code, a plaintiff need not prove that the landlord had notice of flaking, loose, or peeling paint. The court concluded that the Housing Code imposes a continuing duty on landlords to maintain dwellings free of such conditions and that violation of the Code, if a proximate cause of injury, is prima facie evidence of negligence. The court also addressed the relevance of violation notices concerning unrelated properties and recognized that its prior decision in Richwind v. Brunson was modified or overruled to the extent inconsistent with this holding.

Holdings

1. In a tort action against a Baltimore City landlord based on a child's consumption of lead-based paint present as flaking, loose, or peeling paint in violation of the Housing Code, the plaintiff need not prove that the landlord had notice of the violation to establish a prima facie negligence case.
2. The Baltimore City Housing Code imposes a continuing duty on a landlord to keep a dwelling free of flaking, loose, or peeling paint while the dwelling is in use, and the landlord has sufficient control and a right of entry to inspect and repair the condition during the tenancy.
3. Violation notices issued concerning unrelated properties were irrelevant to liability and compensatory damages because landlord knowledge of the Housing Code violation was not an element of the plaintiffs' prima facie case; their admission required a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a plaintiff in a lead-paint negligence action against a Baltimore City landlord must prove that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of flaking, loose, or peeling paint or of the Housing Code violation.
2. Whether the Baltimore City Housing Code imposes a continuing duty on landlords to keep leased premises free of flaking, loose, or peeling paint and provides sufficient control for landlords to inspect and repair such conditions during the tenancy.
3. Whether violation notices concerning unrelated properties were relevant and admissible when landlord knowledge of the lead-paint hazards was not an element of the plaintiffs' prima facie negligence case.

Disposition

affirmed