Barr v. Rochkind
124 A.3d 1128
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Appellant Patrice Barr alleged childhood lead poisoning from paint while living at 2027 Ridgehill Avenue (residence ca. 2001–2003).
- Multiple childhood blood-lead tests (1996–2002) showed elevated levels; a rise to 8 µg/dL occurred in April 2002 after she had lived at Ridgehill.
- Appellant submitted affidavits: her mother described peeling/chipping interior paint and child hand-to-mouth behavior; a pediatrician (Dr. Levy) opined the house probably contained lead paint and was a substantial contributor to Barr’s exposure.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff could not prove the property contained lead paint or that it caused the injury. Defendants submitted no competing affidavits.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of special appeals affirmed, holding plaintiff had not ruled out other reasonably probable sources of lead exposure and that the expert’s generalized opinion was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to defeat summary judgment by showing the subject property contained lead paint and caused exposure | Barr: evidence of an old, deteriorated house, contemporaneous blood-lead increase, and Dr. Levy’s opinion suffice; defendants offered no contrary evidence | Defs: plaintiff must rule out other reasonably probable lead sources; circumstantial proof here is insufficient | Court: plaintiff must rule out other reasonably probable sources when relying on a "Dow" theory; summary judgment affirmed for defendants |
| Whether the pediatrician’s opinion (based on house age/condition and typical prevalence of lead paint) can substitute for evidence that the specific house contained lead paint | Barr: Dr. Levy’s opinion ties medical causation to facts (age, peeling paint, child behavior) and is reliable | Defs: expert opinion based on generalities about age/peeling is speculative and cannot establish the specific house had lead paint | Held: Expert opinion based on presumptions that old houses typically have lead paint is insufficient to establish the specific property contained lead paint |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Kirson, 439 Md. 501 (explaining two-step causation and requiring plaintiffs relying on a Dow theory to rule out other reasonably probable sources)
- Dow v. L&R Properties, 144 Md. App. 67 (permitting inference that a property contained lead paint where child spent most time there and other exposures were affirmatively excluded)
- West v. Rochkind, 212 Md. App. 164 (distinguishing proof required for property containing lead paint from proof that exposure at property caused poisoning)
- Ross v. Hous. Auth. of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648 (discussing analytical layers in establishing causation in lead-paint cases)
- Smith v. Rowhouses, Inc., 223 Md. App. 658 (holding lack of other known exposures can support inference that defendant’s property was the only reasonably probable source)