(a) In each tenement, lodging or boarding house the walls of any court, shaft, hall or room shall be whitewashed or painted a light color whenever, in the opinion of the board of health or enforcing agency, such whitewashing or painting is needed for the better lighting of any room, hall or water closet compartment.
(b) Paint on the exposed surfaces of the interior of a tenement house shall not be cracked, chipped, blistered, flaking, loose, or peeling so as to constitute a health hazard. Testing, remediation, abatement and management of lead-based paint at a tenement house or its premises shall be as defined in, and in accordance with, the regulations, if any, adopted pursuant to section 19a-111c.
(P.A. 79-571, S. 80; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 07-2, S. 57.)
History: June Sp. Sess. P.A. 07-2 amended Subsec. (b) to apply provisions to exposed surfaces of interior of tenement houses, rather than accessible surfaces, and add provision re testing, remediation, abatement and management of lead-based paint at tenement houses.
Presence of lead paint in violation of section constitutes negligence per se; section does not impose strict liability on landlords; because section does not modify common law elements of landlord premises liability, notice is relevant to tenant's cause of action. 235 C. 360.
Cited. 35 CA 126; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 360; 40 CA 219.
Notes of Decisions
Gore v. People's Sav. Bank, 665 A.2d 1341 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 12× “, granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the strict liability count and, after the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on the remaining counts, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict.”
Gore v. People's Sav. Bank, 644 A.2d 945 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 9× “Both actions are grounded in claims that the defendants violated (1) General Statutes §§ 47a-8 and 47a-7, which together provide that the presence of paint containing lead in excess of certain federally prescribed standards or of certain flaking or peeling paint that constitutes…”
Gore v. People's Sav. Bank, 670 A.2d 332 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
“The Supreme Court did not disagree with this assessment, and noted that its discussion of § 47a-8 will necessarily control the effect of § 47a-54f (b). Gore v. People’s Savings Bank, supra, 235 Conn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.