Federal Court holds children have no cause of action for violation of lead paint remediation statute
The Congress adopted a statute intended to require owners of residential units to remove lead paint, a known hazard to children. The statute is 42 USC 4851-4856. Christina Roberts attempted to sue her landlords, Christopher and Joan Hamer, on behalf of Roberts' children, for violating the act. The Sixth Circuit, in an opinion written by Traverse City native Richard Griffin, held that the statute did not create a private cause of action on behalf of victims. Therefore, although the Hamers may be guilty of violating the act by renting the unremediated property, the children have no remedy for any damage they may have suffered: the judges held that language in the statute granting a right of action to "purchasers or lessees" does not grant a right of recovery to the lessee's children--even though it was children whom the act was intended to protect.
Our judicial system is becoming more and more like the judicial system in China and other nations where only "lip-service" is paid to democracy. The courts have become a system of "process" with all the trappings of "justice," but no real attempt to achieve even-handed justice based on individual rights, logic and common sense.