Question

Plaintiffs Karl and Ginny Drake were injured by lead paint while living in a house owned by Riverwood Homes, LLC. The plaintiffs sued Bill Ding, a member of the LLC at the time it owned the property, alleging that he was liable for their injuries. Ding had limited involvement with the property. He has never visited the property, and neither he nor the LLC was aware that the plaintiffs were occupying the property until after the LLC acquired it. Once they realized this fact, they took legal action to have the plaintiffs removed. The applicable housing code imposes liability on any individual who "owns, holds, or controls" the title to the property. Is Ding liable for the plaintiffs' injuries? What are the policy arguments in favor of both parties?

Answer 1

Limited Liability Company- LLC,  

It offers protection from personal liability for business debts,just like corporation. The profits and losses of the business pass through the owners,who report them on their tax returns.It is less complex and less paperwork needed to register this

LLC owner liables for

• Personally or directly injures someone
• fails to deposit taxes
• Intentionally done something wrong

Ding is not liable for the Plaintiffs karl and Ginny Drake injuries, because he is not directly involved in it .

As per the rule, respondent should be held liable on the basis of the facts alleged in this case. Any individual who owns, holds, or controls the title to a dwelling should be liable and fines shall be imposed on them for any kind of misshapen in their dwelling. As per the case, respondent controlled the title to the property at issue. And any property owner should maintain safer precautions while giving the property on lease. Since Ding is property owner, he should be held liable.

But, in this case Ding is not liable for plaintiffs' injuries. Since, petitioners had no legal right to possess the property and that neither Respondent nor Hard Assets LLC intended to lease the property nor they were aware that petitioners were occupying the property until after Hard Assets acquired it. Had they known that plaintiffs were residing, they would have made certain changes to the property to make it more safer. Since, respondent was not aware that plaintiffs were residing, he is not liable to their injuries.

Policy arguments of Ding

• As per the act, Ding is not personally liable and involved for the loss of Plaintiffs'.
• Emphasize record keeping, Ding doesn't have the record of Plaintiff and Ginny stayed over there

Arguments of Plaintiff

• By paying taxes, he can sue Ding for the loss injured
• As owners are responsible for the loss, he may charge Ding.