Paula Bratton v. Halsey McDonough, 91 A.3d 1050

Background

In 2004 the Brattons rented a house from McDonough; their children subsequently showed elevated blood lead levels and home testing showed lead paint hazards.
The State tested the house in 2008, found numerous lead hazards, and ordered relocation; relocation was not completed until March 2009 after dispute over payment with McDonough.
The Brattons sued in 2009 asserting negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and punitive damages (among other counts); at trial, only negligence, IIED, and punitive damages remained for the children.
On the eve of trial the court limited portions of two plaintiff experts’ testimony (a toxicologist and a brain‑injury specialist) as to causation because neither had medical degrees.
The court granted JMOL for defendant on negligence claims for the two older children and on IIED and punitive damages for all children; the youngest child’s negligence claim proceeded to the jury, which returned a defense verdict.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, concluding the exclusion of expert causation testimony, the JMOL rulings, and the refusal to give a Lovely instruction were legal errors that prejudiced the plaintiffs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of expert causation testimony	Experts (toxicologist and brain‑injury specialist) were qualified; exclusion for lack of medical degree was improper — challenges went to weight not admissibility	Experts lacked medical degrees and thus could not reliably opine on medical causation	Court: Exclusion was clear error; qualifications go to weight, not admissibility; experts should have been allowed to testify on causation
JMOL on negligence for two older children	Evidence (physician testimony and experts) could support a finding that lead exposure contributed to older children’s deficits	Evidence was insufficient to causally connect older children’s conditions to lead	Court: Granting JMOL was error — reasonable view of evidence could support verdict for plaintiffs; JMOL vacated
Jury instruction re apportionment / Lovely burden allocation	Requested Lovely instruction: defendant bears burden to prove independent or prior causes and to apportion damages; trial court should have instructed accordingly	Court’s instruction was sufficient and did not need to place burden on defendant	Court: Trial court erred by refusing Lovely instruction; burden to prove independent causation rests with defendant and should have been instructed to jury
JMOL on IIED and punitive damages	Evidence that landlord knowingly exposed children to lead and delayed relocation could support IIED and implied malice for punitive damages	Conduct was not extreme or outrageous; no evidence of severe emotional distress or malice	Court: JMOL on IIED and punitive damages was error; reasonable jurors could find extreme conduct, severe distress, and implied malice; those claims reinstated

Key Cases Cited

Lovely v. Allstate Ins. Co., 658 A.2d 1091 (Me. 1995) (burden to prove independent causation and apportionment rests with defendant)
Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Penn., 878 A.2d 509 (Me. 2005) (standard for reviewing admissibility and reliability of expert testimony)
Tolliver v. Dep't of Transp., 948 A.2d 1223 (Me. 2008) (expert admissibility turns on foundation and relevance, not degree alone)
Lewis v. Knowlton, 688 A.2d 912 (Me. 1997) (standard for reviewing JMOL: view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp., 745 A.2d 378 (Me. 2000) (application of Lovely to independent intervening events)
Lyman v. Huber, 10 A.3d 707 (Me. 2010) (elements required to prove IIED)
Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353 (Me. 1985) (punitive damages require malice; implied malice possible where conduct is sufficiently outrageous)
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829 (3d Cir. 1990) (toxicologist testimony admissible despite lack of medical degree)
Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2006) (toxicologist may testify that exposure caused injuries)