| Court: | WI Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Antwaun has lead poisoning. Both mom's and aunt's house have lead paint. |
| Posture: | Suits filed against landlords and insurers, all but one settle or are dismissed. Appeal from judgment for the landlords. |
| Issue: | Should the landlords have known about the lead paint? |
| Holding: | Yes, the court erred, but we dismiss anyway. |
| Rule: | No privity: Antwaun wasn't a party to the contract at his aunt's house, and the implied warranty cause against his mom's landlord seeks compensatory not contractual damages. |
| Reasoning: | Landlords had notice of the deteriorating paint. There's a general duty of reasonable care in WI. We can't seriously maintain any longer that lead paint is an unknown risk, or that tenant eating of premises is unforeseen. There is a duty to test for lead paint, as a result, and the circuit court erred in giving summary judgment. There is an implied warranty of habitability. But... |
| Dicta: | |