2016 Ohio 1484
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In May 2009 Stacy Webster and her family rented an early-1900s Wyandot County house from Robert and Diane Shaw; the Shaws did not provide the federally required lead pamphlet/disclosure.
- Within a month Stacy’s two children tested with high blood-lead levels; an Ohio Dept. of Health inspection in July 2009 confirmed lead-based paint on the premises.
- Plaintiffs sued (Dec. 2013) asserting negligence, negligence per se (including violation of 42 U.S.C. §4852d), breach of warranty, nuisance, and loss of consortium.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Shaws, finding (1) no actual or constructive notice to the Shaws of lead on the property and (2) that the minors lacked standing under §4852d and Stacy lacked independent injury under that statute.
- The Third District reversed: it held genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the Shaws’ actual or constructive notice of lead (paint peeling/chipping, lease disclosure language, disputed phone comments), and found triable issues about damages Stacy incurred related to the §4852d disclosure violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landlord liability under Ohio R.C. 5321.04 (negligence per se) requires actual or constructive notice of the lead hazard | Webster: Violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(1)/(2), including failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. §4852d, constitutes negligence per se; Shaws had notice (peeling paint, lease disclosure, phone calls) | Shaws: No actual or constructive notice of lead at lease start; no prior inspections or tenant complaints; thus no negligence per se liability | Reversed trial court: genuine issue of material fact exists whether Shaws had actual or constructive notice; summary judgment improper |
| Whether the presence of peeling/chipping paint and a generic lease disclosure, plus disputed statements, establish notice as a matter of law | Webster: Combined facts permit a reasonable juror to infer notice | Shaws: Those facts are insufficient—rely on cases where passed inspections or no visible hazards precluded notice | Court: Facts here differ from cited cases; peeling/chipping plus disputed oral statements and disclosure create triable issues |
| Whether violation of 42 U.S.C. §4852d can support negligence per se and whether Stacy has recoverable damages under §4852d | Webster: §4852d nondisclosure supports negligence per se; Stacy incurred non-physical damages (cleaning costs, prescriptions, emotional harm) traceable to nondisclosure | Shaws: Minors lack standing under §4852d; Stacy has no personal physical injury from lead so §4852d claim fails | Court: Did not decide minors’ standing issue on appeal; held triable issues exist whether Stacy incurred damages traceable to defect/nondisclosure, so summary judgment on §4852d-related negligence per se was improper |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate based on precedent relied on by trial court (e.g., Patterson, Filson) | Webster: Distinguishes those cases factualy; here paint was chipping and plaintiffs reported it to landlord before the health dept inspection | Shaws: Precedent shows landlords can be found lacking notice as a matter of law where no indicia of hazard or government inspection cleared the unit | Court: Distinguished those precedents on their facts and concluded reliance on them was misplaced; summary judgment should not have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, 909 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio 2009) (negligence per se framework for statutory violations)
- Sikora v. Wenzel, 727 N.E.2d 1277 (Ohio 2000) (landlord excused from liability under R.C. 5321.04 if neither knew nor should have known of the hazardous condition)
- Chambers v. St. Mary's School, 697 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio 1998) (statutory breach may establish duty/breach for negligence per se)
- Robinson v. Bates, 857 N.E.2d 1195 (Ohio 2006) (statutory violations do not always preclude defenses unless statute so contemplates)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 604 N.E.2d 138 (Ohio 1992) (summary judgment must be awarded cautiously and construed in favor of nonmoving party)