Jackson v. Dackman Co.
30 A.3d 854
| Md. | 2011Background
- Maryland's Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act grants landlords immunity from certain lead-injury suits under specified conditions.
- Plaintiffs challenge the Act as unconstitutional under Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
- ZiTashia Jackson suffered lead exposure at 1233 Cliftview Avenue with blood lead levels never reaching 25 ug/dl during 1997–2000.
- Prior Mt. Holly Street residence reportedly passed Full Risk Reduction; tenants claimed ongoing chipping/peeling paint and exposure.
- Disputes over whether registrations for affected properties were timely renewed under § 6-812(a)(1) and § 6-813 arise in the record.
- The Court ultimately held the immunity provisions invalid under Article 19, but severed them from the rest of the Act for partial enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Article 19 bar immunity for lead-injury claims? | Jackson argues immunity violates Article 19 by denying a remedy. | Dackman contends immunity is a valid policy judgment and substitutes a remedy. | Immunity provisions violate Article 19 and are invalid. |
| Are the immunity provisions severable from the rest of the Act? | If immunity is invalid, the rest of the Act should remain effective only if severable. | Severability should preserve the statute's remaining purposes intact. | Immunity provisions are severable; remaining provisions can be enforced. |
| Did registration renewal timing affect immunity applicability and remedies? | Non-timely renewals could impair eligibility for immunity. | Timely renewals were substantially complied with; immunity could apply. | Not addressed due to Article 19 ruling and severability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piselli v. 75th Street Medical, 371 Md. 188 (Md. 2002) (Article 19 remedy/open courts with correctional jurisprudence)
- Robinson v. Bunch, 367 Md. 432 (Md. 2002) (Legislature may substitute statutory remedies for common-law ones)
- Rios v. Montgomery County, 386 Md. 104 (Md. 2005) (Immunity doctrines and access to remedies)
- Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70 (Md. 1995) (Remedy restrictions and Article 19 considerations)
- Robinson v. Bunch, 367 Md. 432 (Md. 2002) (Statutory remedies vs. common-law rights under Article 19)
- Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Pepper, 346 Md. 679 (Md. 1997) (Remedies and limitations analogous to Article 19 concerns)