Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc. v. Partlow
191 A.3d 425
Md.2018Background
- From 1993–1999 KKI ran a Lead-Based Paint Repair & Maintenance (R&M) Study in Baltimore that assigned houses to limited abatement levels (Groups 1–3) and tested children’s blood-lead levels over time.
- Ashley Partlow (born 1988) was not enrolled in the study; her younger sister Anquenette (age 2) was a participant via a consent form signed by their mother. The family leased a Group 2 house randomly assigned to a $3,500 abatement cap.
- KKI tested the property, sent letters reporting dust results, maintained records including blood-lead results and a lead-poisoning questionnaire noting Ashley’s residence in the R&M house, and collected blood tests for Ashley (referred by the Health Department).
- Ashley later sued KKI alleging negligence (and other claims), contending KKI’s control over the study’s abatement level exposed her to lead even though she was not a study participant.
- Trial court granted KKI summary judgment on duty grounds; Court of Special Appeals reversed as to negligence, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed: under limited circumstances KKI owed a duty to non-participant children it knew resided in study houses and there was evidence of a special relationship to send the issue to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KKI owed a duty of care to a non‑participant child living in a house subject to the R&M Study | Partlow: duty exists because KKI knew Ashley lived in the study house, knew of lead presence, set abatement level, and exposed her to foreseeable, potentially severe harm | KKI: no duty because Ashley was not a study participant; no direct/researcher‑subject relationship; recognizing a duty creates indeterminate liability | Held: In limited circumstances a duty exists where the institute knew a non‑participant child lived in the study property, obtained consent for a participant in the same dwelling, knew/suspected lead was present, set abatement level, and the non‑participant was allegedly injured there. |
| Whether recognizing duty creates an indeterminate class and unmanageable liability | Partlow: duty is limited to identifiable children KKI knew would be exposed (e.g., siblings/household members) | KKI: expansion of Grimes would create boundless liability to indeterminate classes | Held: Court rejected indeterminate‑class concern, finding the class is finite and identifiable under the defined circumstances. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper or whether factual questions (special relationship) should go to a jury | Partlow: factual record shows KKI kept records on Ashley, tested the house, and knew she lived there — sufficient to submit special‑relationship question to jury | KKI: no evidence of monitoring, consent, or treatment tied to Ashley; summary judgment appropriate | Held: Viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor, sufficient facts supported submission to trier of fact on special relationship; summary judgment was erroneous. |
| How to analyze duty under Maryland common law | Partlow: use foreseeability and the seven Kiriakos factors to assess duty; foreseeability of severe harm weighs strongly for duty | KKI: emphasizes need for a direct relationship and limits from precedent (Dehn, Doe, Gourdine) | Held: Court applied Kiriakos seven‑factor balancing (foreseeability, certainty of injury, closeness of connection, moral blame, prevention policy, burden/consequences, insurance) and concluded factors weighed heavily for imposing duty here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., 366 Md. 29 (2001) (researcher‑subject consent agreements can create special relationships and duties; summary judgment improper on record presented)
- Doe v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Inc., 388 Md. 407 (2005) (existence of duty is a question of law; foreseeability alone does not create duty to an unrelated third party)
- Kiriakos v. Phillips, 448 Md. 440 (2016) (sets seven classic factors to decide duty questions under Maryland common law)
- Dehn v. Edgecombe, 384 Md. 606 (2005) (declines to impose duty to a patient’s spouse absent a direct relationship or extraordinary circumstances)
- Gourdine v. Crews, 405 Md. 722 (2008) (manufacturer owed no duty to a third party harmed by a user’s adverse reaction; court resists duties to indeterminate classes)
- May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 446 Md. 1 (2015) (applies seven‑factor duty test to impose a limited duty to warn under particular foreseeability and product‑related circumstances)