Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-8 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 47-24c). Paint not conforming to standards renders property unfit

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 47a-8 is repealed, effective July 1, 1994.

(1971, P.A. 194, S. 4; P.A. 75-392, S. 1; P.A. 76-95, S. 20, 27; 76-435, S. 75, 82; P.A. 79-571, S. 15; P.A. 94-220, S. 11, 12.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1989–2007 · leading case: Gore v. People's Sav. Bank, 665 A.2d 1341 (Conn. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gore v. People's Sav. Bank, 665 A.2d 1341 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 39× “The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had been negligent because they reasonably had failed “to inspect, properly detect and correct” the lead-based paint in the apartment, the presence of which constituted a health hazard under General Statutes §§ 47a-8, 47a-7 (a) (2) and…”

Gore v. People's Sav. Bank, 644 A.2d 945 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 22× “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…”

Hous. Auth. v. Olesen, 624 A.2d 920 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 17× “” The expansion of that duty to include lead-based paint abatement is unequivocally furnished by General Statutes § 47a-8, which provides in relevant part that “[t]he presence of paint which does not conform to federal standards as required in accordance with the Lead-Based…”

Gore v. People's Sav. Bank, 670 A.2d 332 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 10× “§ 4841 and incorporated by § 47a-8. On the basis of the results of this inspection, Gaines sent notification to the landlord and requested that it abate the lead in the plaintiffs’ apartment.”

Hardy v. Griffin, 569 A.2d 49 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1989). · cites it 4× “In support of the strict liability theory, the plaintiff cites General Statutes § 47a-8 and the New Haven Code of General Ordinances.”

Pickering v. Aspen Dental Mgmt., Inc., 919 A.2d 520 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “to 1985) § 47a-8. This particular statute incorporated the federal statutory standards for lead based paint.”

Rivera v. Fairbank Mgmt. Props., Inc., 703 A.2d 808 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “to 1985) § 47a-8; 3 General Statutes *166 § 19a-lllc; Regs.”

Grimes v. Hous. Auth., 698 A.2d 302 (Conn. 1997). “2d 1341 (1995) ('‘[General Statutes] § 47a-8 imposes on landlords a standard of care *248 the violation of which constitutes negligence per se”); Panaroni v.”

Torres v. Dep't of Corr., 912 A.2d 1132 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “2d 1341 (1995) (examining General Statutes § 47a-8 for legislative intent to create a strict liability standard).”

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.