If the purpose of the Act is to prevent lead poisoning, then plaintiff is correct in asserting that the drafters of the legislation must have intended that a private right of action be available not only to redress injuries suffered by children but to encourage landlords to actively eliminate lead substances from their buildings or not use them at all. Plaintiff's injuries due to lead poisoning are precisely the type of injury that the Act was designed to prevent. Clearly, a private right of action is implied by this statute. Finally, if plaintiff is denied a private right of action, her injuries will not be adequately redressed. Here, where lead-poisoned children often belong to low income families, a criminal conviction would probably do little to ameliorate their condition.
Defendants argue that a negligence action is adequate to address plaintiff's injury.
However, to prevail in a negligence action, plaintiff must satisfy the notice requirement. For this reason, a negligence action alone would not be an adequate remedy. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the lower court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Reversed and remanded.