Maryland Headlines
Maryland’s High Court Invalidates Limited Liability Protection for Property Owners in Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act
On Oct. 24, Maryland’s highest court, the MD Court of Appeals, ruled in Zi'Tashia Jackson v. The Dackman Company (No. 131, September Term 2008) that provisions in Maryland's Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act (the Act) which granted owners of certain rental properties immunity from personal injury law suits, under specified conditions, are invalid because they violate the Maryland Constitution.
The unanimous (7-0) decision states that Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights generally protects two interrelated rights: 1) a right to a remedy for an injury to one’s person or property; and 2) a right of access to the courts-- and that both protections are violated by the immunity protections in the Act, because they constitute an unreasonable restriction on the child’s right to a remedy and access to the courts. The Court wrote: “For a child who is found to be permanently brain damaged from ingesting lead paint, proximately caused by the landlord’s negligence, the maximum amount of compensation under the qualified offer is minuscule. It is almost no compensation. Thus, the remedy which the Act substitutes for a traditional personal injury action results in either no compensation (where no qualified offer is made or where a qualified offer is rejected) or drastically inadequate compensation (where such qualified offer is made and accepted).”
Without stating so explicitly, the Court infers that its holding applies retroactively; it did, however, also explicitly hold that the invalid section of the Act is severable from the rest of the Act and that the validity of its remaining sections remains intact.
The full extent of what this ruling means for property owners is somewhat unclear. Certainly, one reading that can be expected from personal injury lawyers and advocates is that property owners must continue to comply with all of the requirements of the Act, despite having been stripped of the limited liability protections that had been essential to their acceptance of those other requirements when the law was developed in 1994. AOBA will be in touch with members to determine what its approach should be on your behalf. In the meantime, owners with lead-based paint concerns should consult with their attorneys about the most appropriate course of action. See the complete opinion here: http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2011/131a08.pdf
