We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
The Habitat Group Logo
  • NY Apartment Law
    • New York Apartment Law Insider
    • New York Landlord V. Tenant
    • Co-Op & Condo Case Law Digest
    • New York Rent Regulation Checklist, Fourth Edition
    • 2025 New York City Apartment Management Checklist
  • Fair & Affordable Housing
    • Fair Housing Coach
    • Assisted Housing Management Insider
    • Tax Credit Housing Management Insider
    • Fair Housing Boot Camp. Basic Training For New Hires
  • Commercial Lease Law
    • Commercial Lease Law Insider
    • Best Commercial Lease Clauses, 17/e
      • Best Commercial Lease Clauses, 17/e
    • Best Commercial Lease Clauses: Tenant's Edition
  • Guidebooks
  • May 29, 2025
  • Log In
  • Log Out
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • May 29, 2025
AHMI Logo.webp
  • Archives
  • Main Articles
    • Features
    • Certification
    • Compliance
    • Crime & Security
    • Dealing with Households
    • Income Calculations
    • Maintenance
    • Screening Applicants
  • Departments
    • Dos and Don'ts
    • Q and A
    • Recent Court Rulings
    • HUD Audits
    • In the News
    • Ask the Insider
      • Send Us A Question
  • eAlerts
  • Blogs
Free Issue
The Habitat Group Logo
May 29, 2025
  • Log In
  • Log Out
  • My Account
Home » PHA Not Liable for Mold-Related Health Problems

PHA Not Liable for Mold-Related Health Problems

Jun 19, 2013

Facts: A Section 8 resident sued the local PHA, leasing agents, and various contractors for alleged harm suffered from the presence of mold and microbiological contaminants in her unit. The resident claimed that the site didn’t meet HUD’s Housing Quality Standards and that “improper inspections and repairs” were made to the property. Specifically, the resident claimed that the local PHA never conducted testing for microbiological contamination due to dampness, and as a result of this failure to inspect, she and her children suffered “catastrophic and debilitating injuries.” The lawsuit claimed that the PHA was responsible for a “state-created danger” in violation of the 14th Amendment by failing to inspect the resident’s unit. An Ohio district court granted the PHA’s request to dismiss the case. The resident appealed.

Ruling: The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling.

ReasoningThe resident failed to state a 14th Amendment claim under the state-created-danger theory because she didn’t allege that the PHA took an action that created or increased the risk to her and her family. In other words, the PHA’s failure to inspect the site to the resident’s satisfaction couldn’t serve as a basis for liability under a state-created-danger theory. Any danger to her from microbiological or other contaminants existed at the site independent of any involvement by the PHA, and the resident didn’t claim that any action by the PHA exacerbated the danger to her.

  • Lewis v. Ashtabula Metropolitan Housing Authority, June 2013
Recent Court Rulings
    • Related Articles

      PHA Not Liable for Negligence Regarding Mold Complaint

      Owner Not Liable for Mold Contamination

      PHA and Manager Not Liable for Visiting Child’s Death

    • Publications
      • Assisted Housing Management Insider
      • Commercial Lease Law Insider
      • Co-op & Condo Case Law Tracker Digest
      • Fair Housing Coach
      • New York Apartment Law Insider
      • New York Landlord v. Tenant
      • Tax Credit Housing Management Insider
    • Additional Links
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Group Subscriptions
      • Privacy Policy
    • Boards of Advisors
      • Assisted Housing Management Insider
      • Commercial Lease Law Insider
      • Fair Housing Coach
      • New York Apartment Law Insider
      • Tax Credit Housing Management Insider
    ©2025. All Rights Reserved. Content: The Habitat Group. CMS, Hosting & Web Development: ePublishing