Rogers v. Home Equity USA, Inc.
142 A.3d 616
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Terrence Rogers (born 1994) lived at multiple Baltimore residences as a child, including 6149 Chinquapin Parkway (until ~Oct 1996) and 3738 Towanda Avenue (the Towanda Property) for ~6 months (Oct 1996–Apr 1997). Medical records show elevated blood lead levels: 7 µg/dL (6/29/95), 14 µg/dL (3/25/96), 21 µg/dL (1/8/97), 20–21 µg/dL (3/26/97), then declining thereafter.
- BCHD testing in 1976 identified lead-based paint and an abatement card was issued; subsequent permits/rehab occurred in 1979, 1983, and 1994. Arc Environmental tested the Towanda exterior in 2014 and found lead on exterior components.
- Rogers sued Home Equity (owner of Towanda) alleging negligence/unfair trade practices for lead exposure causing developmental injury; claims against owners of Chinquapin were later dismissed voluntarily.
- Experts: Dr. Robert Simon (environmental expert) opined Towanda was a substantial contributor to Rogers’ lead exposure; Dr. Jeanette McDaniel (medical expert) opined Rogers was exposed at Towanda and suffered CNS injury, but acknowledged other residences (e.g., Chinquapin) also contributed and that blood-lead changes between 14 → 21 µg/dL did not necessarily mean greater injury.
- Home Equity moved for summary judgment arguing Rogers failed to show (1) that lead-based paint existed in Towanda during his tenancy (no interior testing then), and (2) that Towanda was a substantial, proximate source of his elevated blood lead levels given exposures elsewhere. Circuit court granted summary judgment on causation grounds; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers produced sufficient evidence that Towanda contained lead-based paint during his tenancy (source) | Lead was found in 1976, property was dilapidated in 1997, no evidence of full abatement or gut renovation, 2014 exterior tests positive — jury could infer lead remained in 1996–97 | 1976 abatement/ later renovations and permits break the chain; 1976 finding alone is not proof of lead in 1996–97; plaintiff cannot shift burden to defendant to prove removal | Court: 1976 testing is not direct evidence of lead in 1996–97; without stronger circumstantial proof, plaintiff failed to create a genuine dispute on presence of lead during tenancy |
| Whether Towanda was a substantial contributing source of Rogers’ elevated blood-lead levels (causation-in-fact) | Rogers had highest sustained BLLs while at Towanda, observed mouthing of windowsills there, experts opined Towanda contributed even if other sources existed | Multiple prior exposures (e.g., Chinquapin with 1996 BLL 14 µg/dL) make it more likely other properties contributed; experts conceded other sources and did not exclude them; no evidence showing BLLs increased because of Towanda | Court: Even assuming lead was present, plaintiff failed to show it was a reasonable probable substantial source of the 1997 elevated BLLs given prior elevated level and lack of temporal increase attributable to Towanda; summary judgment proper |
| Whether circumstantial evidence (age of house, 1976 finding, dilapidation, later exterior positives) suffices to get to a jury | Combined circumstantial facts allow reasonable inference of presence and exposure at Towanda in 1996–97 | These facts are at best speculative or possibilities; plaintiffs must show a reasonable probability, not mere possibility; exterior testing decades later insufficient | Court: Circumstantial evidence here was insufficient to create reasonable probability of source/exposure in 1996–97; cannot rely on presumption that earlier lead persisted |
| Whether plaintiff had to exclude other possible sources entirely to proceed | Plaintiff: need not rule out all other sources; multiple sources may exist and still allow finding Towanda was a substantial contributor | Defendant: plaintiff must show Towanda was a substantial contributor and cannot rely on experts who concede other significant sources | Court: Plaintiff need not exclude all other sources, but must show a reasonable probability that Towanda substantially contributed; plaintiff failed to meet that burden here |
Key Cases Cited
- Reiter v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 417 Md. 57 (procedural summary-judgment standard and review)
- Hamilton v. Kirson, 439 Md. 501 (requirement to prove property contained lead-based paint and that it substantially contributed to exposure)
- Rowhouses, Inc. v. Smith, 446 Md. 611 (circumstantial proof may establish a property as a reasonable probable source of lead exposure)
- Pittway Corp. v. Collins, 409 Md. 218 (proximate cause requires cause-in-fact and legally cognizable cause; substantial-factor test when multiple sources)
- Brooks v. Lewin Realty III, Inc., 378 Md. 70 (elements for negligence based on statutory/ordinance violation and proximate causation)
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Benjamin, 394 Md. 59 (summary-judgment standards on inferences and genuine issues of material fact)