I've been looking into this, and I've always found that a landlord is responsible for ensuring their property is lead-free. If they don't, you can sue
them for damages, and to get them to remove or render safeish the lead on the property. Either lead in soil, paint, whatever.
So suppose you're father makes you live in a house that's all lead paint. And makes you strip lead paint indoors, with a propane torch during his JMTKDI(Just make the kiddies do it) rennovations. And they get lead poisoning their whole life as a result.
Shouldn't you be able to sue him for damages? How's that LESS bad( I think it's much worse) than a landlord? In the literature describing the hazard posed by lead paint, it is repeatedly stated that houses with lead are inherently unsafe, unreasonably unsuitable homes. I think parents should be required by law to provide a remotely reasonable environment. What do you think? And if they are, and their kids can't sue them, who would? They're who get hurt.
2007-01-09
15:28:38
·
10 answers
·
asked by
idbwekdte
1