Ross v. Housing Authority
430 Md. 648
| Md. | 2013Background
- Cherie Ross, born Oct 6, 1990, sues Bernard Dackman and HABC for lead exposure injuries from two Baltimore City homes.
- Gilmor Street residence (1990–1992) and Payson Street residence (1992–1996) are alleged sources of lead exposure.
- Plaintiff relied on expert Dr. Blackwell-White to prove Payson Street as the source; the circuit court excluded that testimony.
- Circuit Court granted summary judgment for HABC after excluding the expert testimony; this ruling was appealed.
- Evidence supporting plaintiffs case includes blood lead level records, lead paint/dust test results, and maternal deposition/discovery materials describing childhood exposure.
- Court of Special Appeals partially affirmed on expert-admissibility issues but remanded for reconsideration of summary judgment; certiorari granted to address causation and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 5-702 exclusion was proper | Ross argues expert source opinion is admissible and helpful to causation. | HABC contends the expert lacked qualifications and a sufficient factual basis to identify the source. | Yes; exclusion was proper for lack of qualifications and insufficient factual basis. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate absent expert source testimony | Circumstantial evidence could establish source and causation without the expert. | Without the expert on source, causation cannot be proved as a matter of law. | Remanded; summary judgment not definitively warranted based solely on the excluded expert. |
| Whether circumstantial evidence can prove the Payson Street property as the lead source | Dow v. L & R Properties supports using circumstantial evidence to infer source. | Without expert testimony, the chain to establish Payson Street as source may be insufficient. | Circumstantial evidence can establish the source; not fatal to plaintiffs case on remand. |
| What is the proper standard of review and remand scope | Appeal preserves causation questions despite expert exclusion. | Judgment should be affirmed if no genuine issue on causation remains without the expert. | Remand to circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow v. L & R Properties Inc., 144 Md.App. 67, 796 A.2d 139 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002) (circumstantial proof of lead source possible to defeat summary judgment)
- Bartholomee v. Casey, 103 Md.App. 34, 651 A.2d 908 (Md. Ct. App. 1994) (causation in lead paint cases may be shown by substantial factor)
- Reed v. Campagnolo, 332 Md. 226, 630 A.2d 1145 (Md. 1993) (physician's negligence implicated as substantial factor in pregnancy case)
- In re Air Crash Disaster at New Orleans, 795 F.2d 1230 (5th Cir. 1986) (trusts trial court discretion to ensure expert testimony assists the jury)