This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D contracted with EPA and was to receive $200,000 for performing its responsibilities under the contract to experiment with lead dust protocols in the home. D was 'to characterize and compare the short and long-term efficacy of comprehensive lead-paint abatement and less costly and potentially more cost-effective Repair and Maintenance interventions for reducing levels of lead in residential house dust which in turn should reduce lead in children's blood.' The goal was to document the longevity of various lead base paint abatement strategies, factored in terms of reducing lead exposure in house dust and the children's blood lead levels. The project required that small children be present in the homes. [Reading the entire case text makes you instantly outraged at the criminal conduct perpetrated by D and that this was not negligence but an intentional tort. However, Ps sued in negligence.] On appeal Ps alleged that D owed a duty of care to P based on the nature of its relationship with appellant and her mother arising out of: (1) a contract between the parties; (2) a voluntary assumption by D; (3) a 'special relationship' between the parties; and (4) a Federal regulation.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.