Cortes Williams v. Cripps, et al.

 

Docket Number: 02-CV-224573 (Jackson County Circuit Court at Kansas City)
Judge: The Honorable Justine Del Muro, Div 4
Defendant's Attorney: Diane L. Waters & Jeffrey S. Nichols, Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown & Enochs

Facts:

A nine-year old boy claimed he suffered lead poisoning while living in a Section 8 home owned by the defendants. Cortes Williams was born in August, 1995. His mother, Deborah Miller, claimed that at the time of his birth through 1997, they lived at the subject home with the paternal grandmother, Verdell Williams. Verdell Williams rented the home from the defendants through the Section 8 program. Verdell Williams and her son were on the lease, however, no other individuals were to be occupying the subject residence.

Plaintiff’s contentions and causes of action:

The lawsuit was initially filed by the mother, Deborah Miller. Ms. Miller’s lawsuit was dismissed as a result of the statute of limitations. Prior to the dismissal, plaintiffs amended the Petition to add the minor plaintiff. The maternal grandmother was identified as the next friend. The suit claimed that the house had chipping, peeling and flaking lead paint which resulted in an elevated blood lead level of 20 at Cortes Williams’ one-year check up. The blood lead level dropped to 16 within two weeks, but remained above 10 for approximately two years.

Plaintiffs claimed that the landlords knew that Cortes was living in the subject home and that lead-based paint hazards existed in this home. Plaintiffs further claimed that defendants had knowledge that all homes constructed before 1978 may contain lead-based paint hazards. Plaintiffs further alleged that another home owned by the defendants was found to contain lead paint resulting in lead exposure to the minor approximately one year prior to the birth of Cortes Williams. Plaintiffs further noted that the Section 8 records from annual inspections specifically noted lead-based paint and accordingly, the defendants had ample opportunity to be aware of the lead-based paint hazards allegedly present and to abate the same.

The plaintiffs claim that as a result of the lead exposure, Cortes Williams had a significant brain injury and suffered from numerous irreversible neurocognitive deficits, including speech, reading, memory and executive functioning. Plaintiffs alleged punitive damages, $250,000.00 for private schooling and $100,000.00 for psychological counseling. Plaintiffs further claimed over $2M for non-economic damages.

Defense position:

The defendants asserted that they did not know the boy lived at the property. They further argued that they had no knowledge of a lead-based paint hazard at the property. The landlords asserted that they first became aware of any concerns in 1996 when they received a notice from the Kansas City Health Department indicating that a child who spends time at the residence had tested with a high blood lead level. The defendants further asserted that they completed the required abatement which was approved.

The landlords further argued that the boy lived at other pre-1978 residences during the relevant two-year time period and could have been exposed to lead through that arrangement. Finally, the defendants argued that the minor was struggling with a language disorder which was exacerbated by a lack of structure and stimulation from his family before starting school and by a lack of pre-school medical appointments. Once the child was in the public school system, which provided a structured environment and adult stimulation, the defendants argued that his scores and progress increased exponentially – which is inconsistent with a brain injury and indicative of a language disorder.

At the close of evidence following the six-day trial, the plaintiffs dropped their claims against defendant Summers, as well as their claims for punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability were dismissed by the Court through the defendants’ Motion for Directed Verdict and the case was submitted to the jury on negligence.

The jury returned a defense verdict.

© 2005 Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown, and Enochs