Cal. Civ. Code § 6-838
Md. Code Ann., Environment Art. Title 6, Subtitle 8 — Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
Operative Text
(a) (1) In an action seeking damages for alleged injury or loss caused by the ingestion of lead by a person at risk in an affected property, evidence that the owner of the affected property was in compliance with the provisions of Part IV of this subtitle during the period of residency of the person at risk is admissible as evidence that the owner exercised reasonable care with respect to lead hazards during that period. (2) In an action seeking damages for alleged injury or loss caused by the ingestion of lead by a person at risk in an affected property, evidence that the owner of the affected property was not in compliance with the provisions of Part IV of this subtitle during the period of residency of the person at risk is admissible as evidence that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to lead hazards during that period. (b) If a party to an action for damages arising from ingestion of lead by a person at risk in an affected property alleges or denies the time and place of residence of, or visitation by, the person at risk without a good faith basis for the allegation or denial, the court shall require the offending party, the party’s attorney, or both to pay the reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the adverse party in opposing the allegation or denial.
Under Md. Code Ann., Env. §§ 6-801 to 6-852 § 6-838, compliance or non-compliance with Maryland's lead-hazard reduction requirements during a child's or other at-risk person's residency can be introduced as evidence of whether a property owner exercised reasonable care in a lead-injury lawsuit. The provision works in both directions: documented compliance supports a reasonable-care defense, while documented non-compliance supports a finding that reasonable care was lacking. Additionally, any party who makes or denies claims about where and when an at-risk person lived or visited without a good-faith basis may be ordered by the court to pay the opposing party's legal costs, including attorney's fees.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Property owners and managers should understand that their compliance history under Md. Code Ann., Env. §§ 6-801 to 6-852 § 6-838 can directly affect their legal exposure in lead-injury litigation. Operators who maintain thorough records of inspections, risk-reduction measures, and certifications completed during a tenant's residency are generally better positioned to present a reasonable-care defense if a lawsuit arises. Conversely, gaps in compliance documentation during the period an at-risk resident lived in the property may be introduced as evidence against the owner in court.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Under Md. Code Ann., Env. §§ 6-801 to 6-852 § 6-838, tenants and families pursuing claims related to lead ingestion should know that an owner's failure to meet Maryland's lead-hazard reduction requirements during the period of residency can be used as evidence that the owner did not exercise reasonable care. Individuals exploring such claims may benefit from gathering records that document when and where an at-risk person lived in or visited the property, as the provision penalizes parties who dispute residency or visitation without a good-faith basis. Tenant-rights organizations and legal aid offices can help explain how this evidentiary framework may apply in a given lead-injury case.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 12, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.