Most sources of lead exposure to children have been dramatically reduced. But we have a legacy that must be addressed - the legacy of deteriorating lead-based paint. And with 10-15 percent of children in some Indiana neighborhoods having elevated blood lead levels, the problem must be addressed. Most of IKE's work has been through the Lead-Safe Indiana Task Force, which it formed in September of 1999.
What's the Law on Lead in Indiana?
These brochures, prepared by Improving Kids' Environment, will give you a brief description of your rights and responsibilities under Indiana law:
For Judges, Lawyers, Landlords and Housing Professionals: Detailed Manual on Lead Laws in Indiana
Under a generous grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventioin, this manual was produced in 2006 by Improving Kids' Environment. The manual provides a comprehensive summary of the laws, regulations and case law that address the issue of lead-based paint and lead hazards in Indiana. Supplements in 2007 and 2008 updated the manual to include changes in the law. IKE is working on another update that will bring all these versions together in one up-to-date manual.
Court of Appeals Says Landlords Must Know the Law
A 2010 decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals should be fair warning to Indiana landlords that ignorance of lead-based paint laws is no excuse. In an opinion issued on June 9, 2010, the court found a Decatur County landlord was “negligent per se” under Indiana law for failing to follow federal requirements related to lead-based paint.
In the case, Ben and Shona Erwin alleged that their two-and-a-half year old son was exposed to lead-based paint, plaster, and other materials in their rented home. The child had blood-lead levels reaching almost 40 micrograms/deciliter, according to their attorney, Todd Barnes. The boy went from “being able to talk and communicate as a normal two-year-old to talking like an eleven-month-old child,” according to court records.
Landlord Brenda Roe’s defense was that she didn’t know about the federal Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act and didn’t know there was lead in the rental unit. However, the Court of Appeals found, in a 3-0 decision, that ignorance of the law was not a defense. Roe should have provided the tenants with EPA’s lead hazard information pamphlet and followed other requirements in the law.
“The fact that [the boy] ingested the paint chips was a foreseeable consequence that could have been prevented had Roe provided the Erwins with the informational pamphlet, the opportunity to conduct a risk assessment of the premises, or the required warning language in the lease,” Judge Riley wrote for the court.
“Once Roe was made aware of the defect, we find that Roe should have either repaired the problem or should have allowed the Erwins to break their lease and claim damages. In turn, the Erwins are required to demonstrate their damages for moving expenses, finding a comparable living arrangement, and the remainder of the lease.”
The full opinion can be found at this link: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06091001par.pdf
