Brooks vs. Lewin Realty

In August 1988, Shirley Parker rented a house in Baltimore City. Fresh paint was applied to the interior of the house at the beginning of the tenancy. Sharon Parker, Shirley's daughter, moved into the house shortly after her mother rented it. On December 6, 1989, Sharon gave birth to Sean, who then also lived there. Early in 1991, when Sean was slightly more than a year old, Lewin Realty purchased the house at an auction. Before the purchase, one of the owners of Lewin Realty walked through the house accompanied by Sharon as he inspected it. At the time of the walk-through, there was peeling, chipping, and flakingpaint present in numerous areas of the interior of the house, including in Sean's bedroom.After Lewin Realty purchased the house, it entered into a new lease with Shirley but did not paint its interior at that time. In February 1992, Sean was diagnosed with an elevated blood lead level. In May 1992, the house was inspected and found to contain 56 areas of peeling, chipping, and flaking lead paint, and the Baltimore City Health Department (BCHD) issued a lead paint violation notice to Lewin Realty. Section 702(a) of the Baltimore City Housing Code requires that a dwelling be kept in "good repair" and "safe condition" and prohibits a landlord from leasing a dwelling that violates the Housing Code. The Housing Code further provides that maintaining a dwelling in good repair and safe condition includes keeping all interior walls, ceilings, woodwork, doors, and windows clean and free of any flaking, loose, or peeling paint. It also mandates the removal of loose and peeling paint from interior surfaces and requires that any new paint be free of lead. The Housing Code also grants the landlord the right of access to rental dwellings at reasonable times for purpose of making inspections and such repairs as are necessary to comply with the Code. Sharon Parker brought a lawsuit on behalf of her son, alleging, among other things, negligence. The negligence claim was founded on several grounds, including Lewin Realty's violation of the Baltimore City Code; Sean's exposure to an unreasonable risk of harm from the lead-based paint while Lewin Realty knew that its dangerous properties were not known to Sean and not discoverable in the exercise of reasonable care; (3) Lewin Realty's failure to exercise reasonable care in properly maintaining the walls, doors, and ceilings after Lewin Realty had actual and constructive knowledge of the flaking paint condition; and Lewin Realty's failure to exercise reasonable care to inspect the dwelling's paint when a reasonable inspection would have revealed the flaking paint condition. One of the questions in the litigation was whether the tenants were required to show that the landlord had notice of the violation in order to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Lewin Realty argued that because the tenant had control over the property and neither the common law nor any statute expressly required inspections during the tenancy, the court should not impose such a duty. Lewin Realty further argued it should not be held liable unless it had actual knowledge of the violation and that landlords who do not perform periodic inspections should not be charged with knowledge of what such inspections would reveal.Develop an IRAC for this case.

Could someone help format a detailed IRAC for an example for my students?