Michelle and her children live in an apartment owned by Lakefront, Inc., in North Hollywood, CA. Michelle has poor credit and was unable to find a suitable home for her family. She was relieved when she toured Lakefront's property and was told that she could lease an apartment, even with her poor credit, if she put down 4 month's rent as a deposit.

In the lease, which was prepared by Lakefront (they did not use the standard CAR form and instead prepared their own lease), is a clause stating:

"Tenant acknowledges that children tend to cause damage to residential units. Tenant shall be liable for all such damage. Further, Lakefront shall not be liable for any injury caused on the property."

Michelle signed the lease prior to moving in. As she was moving in with the help of her kids, they scratched some paint off the wall when trying to position their furniture. After a few humid months, the paint started to peel off. Although Lakefront knew there was lead in the paint (it was a very old building), Lakefront did not disclose this to Michelle. Michelle called Lakefront and asked that someone come and re-paint her apartment but she was told that they only re-paint between tenants, after the tenant moves out.

One day, Michelle noticed that her 3-year-old was putting the paint chips in his mouth. The paint contained lead and the 3-year-old was hospitalized with lead poisoning. He recovered but Michelle incurred $300,000.00 in hospital bills. Michelle, who does not have health insurance for her family, sued Lakefront for her child's injuries. Lakefront is refusing to settle stating that it's Michelle's responsibility for not mitigating her damages and repairing the wall, and in any event, she signed a waiver.

In Michelle v. Lakefront, what result?

Issue: State the legal issue(s) to be discussed.

Rule: State the relevant statutes and case law.

Application: Apply the relevant rules to the facts that created the issue.

Conclusion: State the most likely conclusions using the logic of the application section.