Benik v. Hatcher
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
BELL, Chief Judge.
In this case, we are asked to decide whether, under the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), Maryland Code (1975,1990 Repl.Vol.) Title 13 of the Commercial Law Article, specifically § 13-301(1), (2) and (3),1 proof of scienter is a prerequisite to *511holding a landlord liable for breach of warranty for injuries resulting from a child’s ingestion of lead-based paint, when the child’s dwelling, at the inception of the lease, contained chipping and flaking paint, in violation of the local housing code.2 The Court of Special Appeals held that scienter is not required and, so, reversed…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Charles of the Ritz Distributors Corp. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Beahm v. ShortallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- Custer Channel Wing Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Citaramanis v. HallowellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Sager v. Housing CommissionDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2012
- Muthukumarana v. Montgomery CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Shreve v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 2001
- Brooks v. Lewin Realty III, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- South Easton Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of EastonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.